Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barnsley Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 20th July, and agreed to.

Chatham Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Morley Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

West Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [Lords],

Ordered, "That, in the case of the Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration pro-
vided amended prints shall have been deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Macclesfield Corporation Bill [Lords],

Ordered, "That, in the case of the Macclesfield Corporation Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Ordered, "That, in the case of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Stafford shire Electric Power Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],

Ordered, "That, in the case of the West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the
Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COST OF LIVING, BOMBAY.

Mr. AMMON: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that when Mr. Findlay Shirras undertook, on behalf of the Government of Bombay, to inquire into the cost of living with a view to establishing an index figure for a standard of life for the mill workers of Bombay and, as a result of his investigations, it was shown that the average earnings of a family works out at 52 rupees per family, it was found that on this standard the wages of postmen in the employ of the Government are considerably lower; and can steps be taken to ensure that, at least, the income of a postman is not less than that of the standard laid down by Mr. Findlay Shirras for mill workers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Mr.Findlay Shirras examined the budgets of about 2,500 families of workers of various classes, and found that their average monthly earnings were rather more than Rs.52. He did not lay down this figure or any other as a standard. His report does not enable a comparison to be made between the income of a postman and a mill worker.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that Mr. Findlay Shirras stated definitely that this was practically a minimum standard of life?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir, I do not think so. I examined what he said, and, in view of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have looked into it. He did not say so; he merely mentioned the fact that there was this difference between the wages of the two classes of workmen.

MINE WORKERS.

Mr. TOMSMITH: 3 and 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether, in view of the profits now being made by coal companies in India, he will say if anything is being done to improve the standard of life of Indian mine-workers and to prohibit the employment of women and young children underground;
(2) whether the hours of labour of underground mine workers in India are regulated by Statute; and, if so, will he state what they are for men, women, and children, respectively?

Earl WINTERTON: The conditions of work in Indian mines will be greatly improved by the recent Indian Mines Act and the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act. The Mines Act prohibits the employment in mines of children under 13, limits the hours of underground work for all adults to 54 hours in any one week, and empowers the Government of India to prohibit, restrict or regulate the employment of women either underground or on labour of a dangerous kind.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Noble Lord aware that some of these coal companies are declaring dividends as high as 165 per cent., and that the Government of India have circularised the local Governments in regard to the abolition of women labour from underground works at the end of five years, from 1st June, next; and does he not think that, in view of the exceptional profits which are being made, it is a scandal to employ women underground in coal mines to-day?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not See what bearing the dividends of the companies have on the question. I think the situation is this—and I am very glad to have the opportunty of telling the hon. Gentle-
man and his colleagues—that admittedly industrial conditions in India are inferior to those in this country, but they are probably far superior to those in any other Asiatic country. There has been a great improvement in recent years. India has more than carried out all her obligations under the International Labour Convention, and the legislation which is about to come into effect will mean a much greater further improvement.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How does the Noble Lord reconcile his statement that India has carried out her obligations under the Washington Convention with the statement that the new Regulations will permit mine workers to work 54 hours per week, when it is recognised that 48 hours' work per week is general?

Earl WINTERTON: I will answer that in a moment. The Convention in question laid down for India a maximum of 60 hours per week, and our legislation is making it only 54 hours.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

BOUNDARY.

5. Mr. FRANK GRAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any progress is being made with a view to determine the permanent boundary between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer the hon. Member to the despatches on this subject which have just been laid on the table of the House.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (COMPENSATION).

11. Colonel NEWMAN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that payment of outstanding local rates is being insisted on by the Free State Government before they will honour awards made against them by the Wood-Renton Commission; whether, having regard to the fact that the security of the rates formerly enjoyed by holders of decrees for malicious injury under the Act of 1920 has been abolished by the Free State Government, he will say what is the connection between the payment of rates by the injured person and the payment to the injured person
of compensation due to him by the Free State Government; and has the British Government agreed to this withholding of compensation in order to force payment of rates on property which has been rendered wholly or partly valueless by the Free State Government prior to July, 1921?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am informed that where, as a result of the inquiries which the Free State Government are bound to make as to whether there are any charges upon an award made by the Wood-Renton Commission, or upon a decree for which such an award has been substituted, it is found that local rates are unpaid, the attention of the solicitors for the applicant is called to the fact, and payment is invited; but that no deduction in respect of unpaid rates has ever been made from compensation awards. I am further informed that where property which would otherwise have been rateable has been destroyed, it is not the practice of the local authorities to enforce their demands for rates. In view of the fact that the Free State Government did not come into existence until 6th December last, I am unable to attribute any meaning to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter from the Irish Minister of Finance, in which he says that this Act has nothing to do with the Minister of Finance or with the Irish Government, but is merely carrying out the instructions of the Wood-Renton Commission? Surely the Commission have laid down no instructions of this kind?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. The Wood-Renton Commission have not laid down anything of this kind.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that the Minister of Finance has been misinformed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen the letter of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman very kindly sent me a copy, but it seems to me that the answer I have just given should clear the matter up.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I give the hon. Gentleman this letter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 12
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are a large number of claimants who obtained decrees for compensation for malicious injuries to property in cases defended by the local county council, and who subsequently converted such decrees into judgments of the High Court in Dublin, who, notwithstanding that over two years have elapsed, have failed to obtain payment from the Free State Government; whether these claimants are now being asked to accept sums substantially less than the amounts of the High Court judgments which they obtained by reason of the provisions of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, recently passed by the Government of the Free State; whether, seeing that such provisions in the case of pre-Truce defended claims are a breach of the agreement entered into between the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government, he will say what action is being taken in the matter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No such cases as those referred to in the second part of the question have been brought to my notice. If the hon. Member will be good enough to supply me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand that, as far as my hon. Friend knows, all pre-Truce defended decrees are being paid in full?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So I am given to understand.

DECREES (INCOME TAX).

Sir W. DAVISON: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Free Stats authorities are deducting Irish Income Tax from the interest payable on pre-Truce defended decree:; in the cases of claimants who have had to leave Ireland and seek refuge in this country; and whether, seeing that this is a breach of the agreement entered into by the Free State authorities with the British Government, he will make representations to the Free State Government that all such claims should be paid forthwith and without deduction of Irish Income Tax?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am not aware of any agreement between the two Governments preventing the deduction of Income Tax in such cases; but if the persons concerned are advised that Income Tax is not payable in respect of such compensation, it is, of course, open to them to take the usual steps for recovery of the tax so deducted.

STATUTES (ENACTING WORDS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in the enacting words of Statutes which have recently been passed by the British Dominion known as the Irish Free State, all reference to His Majesty the King has been omitted; that in the case of the Dominion of Canada, and similarly with other British Dominions, all Statutes are stated to be enacted by His Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada; and whether, seeing that it was expressly provided in the Treaty constituting the Irish Free State that, unless otherwise expressly provided, the law, practice, and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, he will say what representations have been made to the Irish Free State Government with regard to this breach of constitutional usage and of the provisions of the said Treaty?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The enacting words of Irish Free State Statutes are:
Be it enacted by the Oireachtas of Saorstàt Eireann,
and the Oireachtas is defined by Article 12 of the Free State Constitution as the Legislature, consisting of the King and two Houses. A similar phraseology is used in Statutes of the Dominion of New Zealand, where the enacting words are:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament assembled
while words quoted by the hon. Member are found in the Acts of no Dominion other than that of Canada. The last part of the hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact, as indicated in the question, that in matters of constitutional usage of this kind, the Free State Government definitely agreed to adopt the usage of Canada; and will the hon. Gentleman explain why all reference to His Majesty, which any ordinary person can understand, is omitted?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I have said, that arises because an Article in the Constitution made other provisions. The Canadian precedent is to be followed where there is no specific instruction to the contrary in the Constitution, as passed in the Bill which received the approval of this House last December.

ARMY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the passage through the Dail and Sénad of an Irish Army Bill, communications have passed between the Governments of Great Britain and the Free State as to the standing strength of the army of the Free State as laid down by the terms of the Treaty between the Free State and Great Britain?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What need is there at all for this Irish Free State standing army? Is not the Free State amply protected against enemies by the whole British Navy?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Irish Free State have required an army to put down a formidable Republican rebellion.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I ask whether, before the Army Bill becomes an Act, His Majesty's Government will see that effect is given to the Clause in the Treaty that governs the strength of the Free State army?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This matter has not yet been discussed between the two Governments. I do not say that it will not be discussed in the future, as discussion of the point is provided for in the Treaty.

JAFFA (LABOUR DISPUTE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give
as to the assault committed by the Jaffa police upon a peaceful strike picket at Tel Aviv when four men were seriously wounded; and will he arrange for a public inquiry with a View to preventing such events in future?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My information is that a dispute arose between two Jewish labour organisations at Tel Aviv on the 16th July. One party to the dispute attempted to stop the work of the other by force. As the parties refused to disperse, the police quite rightly intervened. It appears that only one man, who was injured with a baton, was detained in hospital. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: From whom did that information come?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: From Sir Gilbert Clayton, the Acting High Commissioner.

JAMAICA (REGRADING COMMISSION).

Mr. HAYES: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his Department has now become cognisant of the Jamaica Regrading Commission Report, issued about 12 months ago; and whether steps are being taken by his Department to secure the application to the Kingston General Penitentiary staff of the new scales of pay recommended in the Report.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Effect has now been given in the Jamaica Estimates for 1923–24 to the recommendations made by the Regrading Commission with regard to the scales of pay of the Kingston General Penitentiary staff.

Mr. HAYES: In giving effect to the Commission's Report, will it have a retrospective effect, and, if so, for what period?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am rather doubtful whether it will have a retrospective effect, but I will look into that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

ECONOMIC PRODUCTS (NATIVE CULTIVATION).

Mr. MOREL: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the-Native Affairs Department of the Colony
of Kenya will be instructed to furnish a Report upon the economic products which might, with technical assistance, be successfully cultivated by the natives of the country in their reserves; if he will give instructions that all possible encouragement shall be furnished to the native population for the cultivation of such products; and if he will consider the advisability of the services of European instructors from West Africa or India being placed at the disposal of the Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A scheme of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is already in force for the instruction of natives, under European supervisors and native instructors, in improved methods of cultivation of crops suitable for the locality in which they live, the crops selected for special encouragement being cotton, rice, sim-sim, groundnuts, maize and beans. I should prefer to await information as to the progress of the scheme before considering the suggestion that instructors should be obtained from West Africa and India.

NATIVES (LABOUR AND TAXATION).

Mr. MOREL: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government that the administration of the Colony of Kenya shall be based upon the principle of trusteeship for the native population, he will consider the repeal of the Registration of Labourers Act, which requires of the adult male inhabitants of the Colony the possession of identification papers, failure to carry which by day or by night is treated as a crime involving arrest and imprisonment and which, the chief Native Commissioner of the Colony has reported, is detested by the native population; will he take steps to rescind the Clause in the Masters and Servants Ordinance, which makes desertion from the European planter or farmer a criminal offence cognisable by the police; will he take steps to review the incidence of direct taxation upon the native population, which in effect involves the able-bodied male population in work upon European farms and plantations for three months out of the year; and will he also take steps to secure that the principle be adopted that at least one-fifth of the direct taxes paid by the natives shall be returned to them in technical education,
medical service, and agricultural instruction?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Governor will be consulted on the first two points. As regards the third part of the question, I cannot accept the suggestion that a native cannot pay his tax by working on his own account, nor do I think that the direct taxation of the natives is necessarily excessive. I should, however, be glad if, consistently with the general financial position of the Colony, a larger proportion of revenue could be devoted to services for the direct benefit of the native. The matter will not be lost sigh, of, but I do not think that any fixed percentage can be laid down.

NATIVE RESERVES.

Mr. MOREL: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent declarations of His Majesty's Government that the interests of the African population of Kenya must be regarded as paramount, he will take early steps to ensure that the inalienability of the existing native reserves shall be secured by law, and that the Native Affairs Department shall have a careful survey of the existing reserves made and reported upon in regard to their adequacy both for food growing and for the cultivation of economic products for export; and will he prohibit, meantime, any alienation of any further land whatever?

Mr. ORMSBY GORE: The importance of defining and proclaiming as soon as possible those native reserves which have not yet been proclaimed is fully realised by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State and the Governor, with whom also the important question of limiting the alienation of reserve land, even for services (such as grain mills) directly benefiting the natives, has also been discussed repeatedly. I will inquire later whether any legislation is necessary to strengthen the powers already possessed by the Governor in regard to native reserves. I have no reason to doubt that the reserves are large enough for the present requirements and probable future expansion of the tribes, but I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion of a survey to the notice of the Governor. I cannot, however, agree that no land whatever in the colony outside the reserves should be alienated until the survey is complete.

RUMANIAN SECURITIES (TAX).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Rumanian Government levies a special tax on foreign holders of Rumanian securities and that this tax applies to money invested in Rumania before the law imposing the tax was passed; and will he consider making representations to the Rumanian Government in the interest of British holders of Rumanian investments and also consulting with other Governments whose nationals are affected concerning this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The hon. and gallant Member is presumably referring to the Rumanian law for the unification of direct taxation, Article 22 of which gives preferential treatment as regards taxation to the shares of joint stock companies whose capital is in the majority Rumanian. Strong representations have already been made to the Rumanian Government on more than one occasion upon this vexatious discrimination, but hitherto without effect.

CHINA (EXTERNAL LOANS).

Mr. WISE: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the external loans of the Chinese Government are not paying their interest?

Mr. McNEILL: Of the loans publicly issued in this country the Chinese Government have defaulted on the 8 per cent. sterling Treasury Notes 1925–9 and the 8 per cent. 10-year Treasury Bills, commonly known as the 'Vickers" and "Marconi" loans respectively; both of these were unsecured loans. I am not in a position to give information regarding loans issued in other countries, or loans not involving a public issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UNITED STATES ARMY OF OCCUPATION (COST).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a settlement has been made between the United States of
America and Germany in regard to the payment of the costs of the American Army of Occupation; and, if so, whether the payments to be made under this settlement will take precedence of those due to this country from Germany in respect of the cost of the British Army of Occupation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): An agreement has been signed between the Government of the United States of America and the Governments of Great Britain, France, Italy and Belgium with regard to the reimbursement of the costs of the American Army of Occupation. The amount due to the United States Government will be payable in twelve equal yearly instalments out of payments in cash in respect of reparation made by Germany, or for the account of Germany, up to 25 per cent. of such payments in cash during the period 1923–6; afterwards up to the full amount of such payments in cash. Receipts by the British Government under the Reparation Recovery Act are not regarded as cash payments for the above purpose. The first annual instalment is payable by 31st December, 1923.
These yearly instalments will not take precedence of sums due to this country in respect of the British Army of Occupation up to the 31st December, 1926, but will do so after that date.

Mr. F. GRAY: May I ask why?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why, what?

Mr. GRAY: Why is this charge to take precedence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Because this agreement has been arrived at.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why America should be the only country to be paid?

Sir W. DAVISON: May we have an answer to that question. Why is America always to be paid, seeing that she came into the War later than any of the other Allies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that raises a very difficult question of high policy, which I should prefer to see addressed to some other Minister.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the other Allied Armies of Occupation have already been paid, whereas America has received no payment until this agreement?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is so.

TURKEY.

Mr. HARRIS: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements, if any, have been made for the payment by Turkey of reparations?

Mr. McNEILL: Under Article 58 of the Peace Treaty signed at Lausanne on 24th July, 1923, Turkey and the other signatory Powers (except Greece) agreed reciprocally to renounce all claims for reparations. By the same Article Turkey renounced all claim to £5,000,000 Turkish in gold transferred to the Allies under the Treaties with Germany and Austria. It is intended to apply this gold to the payment of claims against Turkey by Allied nationals.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that Turkey is paying nothing after all the damage done and all the lives lost; that she is to be the only one of our late enemies to pay nothing towards the cost of the War?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member studies the Peace Treaty, which will shortly be in his hands, he will be able to answer that question himself.

MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

Mr. HILLARY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of cases coming before the mixed arbitral tribunal and the consequent delay in dealing with many claims, he will consider the advisability of setting up other tribunals, so that the cases may be more speedily disposed of?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Southwark (Colonel M. Alexander) on 16th July, a copy of which I am sending him.

GERMAN REPARATIONS (FRENCH AND BELGIAN NOTES).

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to publish the French and Belgian replies to the communication regarding the German Note, so that the House of Commons may consider them before it rises?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No replies have yet been received.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any reason to expect them to-day or tomorrow, in accordance with the statement which has appeared in the newspapers; and whether he has made up his mind in the event of their being received to have a debate on Thursday, so that we may have the benefit of those replies?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is quite possible something will be received, but I am very doubtful at present whether there will be anything that we can publish. I am afraid it will only be a continuation of the negotiations. I shall know better when I receive the replies.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the Prime Minister be willing to make representations to the Governments concerned to the effect that it is the wish of this Parliament to discuss this matter?

Mr. MacDONALD: May I put a further supplementary question? On Thursday, I understand, we are to debate the subject. Do the Government intend to give us any indication of the nature of their communication to France and Belgium, in order that we may discuss it on Thursday?

The PRIMEMINISTER: I can hardly come to a conclusion until nearer the time as to how much it will be possible to say. I can assure the House I am anxious to give it as much information as I can.

RUSSIA (BRITISH NATIONALS' CLAIMS).

Mr. LANSBURY: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention had been called to an appeal issued by an association claiming to represent British subjects
with monetary claims against Russia, urging Members of this House to use their influence to secure from the Russian Government payment of such claims; and whether His Majesty's Government, in order that these claims may be promptly dealt with, will at once accept the offer of the Russian Soviet Government to enter into a conference for the settlement of all outstanding questions between the two countries and the conclusion of a definite treaty of peace in accordance with the provision of the annexe to the trade agreement?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to one of the hon. Members for Dundee, on the 19th June last.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY)

Colonel WOODCOCK: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if all the Powers have ratified the Washington Naval Treaty; and, if not, which Powers have not done so?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It only remains now for the ratifications to be deposited at Washington.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

LABOUR REPRESENTATIVES.

Mr. LEACH: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many representatives of the political Labour movements of each of the countries concerned are entitled to attend the council meetings of the League of Nations?

Mr. McNEILL: States members of the Council are entitled to one representative each, to take part in the deliberations. The meetings of the Council are mostly held in public, and any persons interested can be present as spectators at such meetings if they so desire.

Mr. LEACH: What I intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and I thought the question was clear—was, how many actual labour delegates from each country (take part in the Council meetings?

Mr. McNEILL: I have answered that question. Each State which is a member of the Council is entitled to one.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister the names of the British representatives for the Assembly of the League of Nations; whether it is intended to confine representation of Great Britain to members of the one political party supporting the present Government; whether a woman delegate will be included in the British representation; and who will represent the Dominion of South Africa this year?

Mr. WEBB: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the delegates of Great Britain have been appointed for the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September; and whether he has considered the possibility of permitting two of the British delegates to be appointed by the House of Commons, so that the widest representation may be given to the main currents of political opinion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not yet in a position to say who will be the British representatives, but the suggestion contained in the last part of the question of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), is not one that the Government can accept.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a woman delegate is to be appointed?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question on Wednesday, I think I shall be able to give him a complete reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want the name of the delegate, but are the Government going to follow the example of their predecessors?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I would rather answer the whole question on Wednesday.

GREECE (POLITICAL SITUATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information about the political situation in
Greece; whether he has information of any attempt to set up a republican regime in place of the monarchy; what information he has about the part being played by M. Venizelos, General Pangalos and Admiral Hadjikiriakis in the republican movement; and whether His Majesty's Government is exercising any pressure for or against this republican movement?

Mr. McNEILL: Reports of the nature indicated have from time to time reached His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position to give any authoritative information, or to express any opinion, as to the attitude of individual Greek statesmen in matters of Greek internal politics.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the last part of the question?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes. His Majesty's Government is exercising no pressure, one way or the other.

Mr. HARRIS: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the Foreign Office has had no information as to what is going on in Greece? We have repeatedly asked for information, and have never been able to get it.

Mr. McNEILL: We have had the fullest possible information on all matters of this kind.

MEXICO (DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government is now able to recognise the Mexican Government; and what are the reasons for the continued delay in doing so?

Mr. McNEILL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to several questions on this subject on the 14th March last. No developments have occurred since then such as to warrant a change in the attitude of His Majesty's Government.

KEW GARDENS (ADMISSION CHARGE).

Mr. GILBERT: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what charge is now made
to the public for entrance to Kew Gardens; whether any charge was made in pre-War years; when a charge was first imposed; if there has been any reduction on the first charge made; if so, when; and whether he will consider as to abolishing the charge for admission to these educational gardens?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The charge now made to the public for entrance to Kew Gardens is as follows:


On Mondays, Tuesdays following Bank Holidays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Good Friday, Saturdays and Sundays
1d.


On Tuesdays and Fridays (students' days) except as above
6d.


School parties, including a teacher or teachers, are admitted at a charge of 6d. for 12, with 3d. for each additional six, while season tickets available for the calendar year can be obtained for £1 and 5s. in the case of students.
Special charges are made for bath chairs, perambulators, etc.
No charge was made in pre-War years. The charge for admission was first imposed in January, 1916, since when no reduction has been made. I regret that I do not see my way to abolish the charge for admission to these gardens. I have no evidence that it interferes with their use from an educational point of view, and it now brings in an annual revenue of approximately £7,000.

Mr. W. THORNE: It is a mean charge!

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. EDE: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many ex-service men applied for small holdings in England and Wales; how many have been settled on the land; how many have been passed as suitable but have not yet been settled; how many have been rejected as unsuitable; and how many applicants have not yet been classified as suitable or unsuitable?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the answer necessarily contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As the hon. Member is probably aware, any ex-service men who desired to avail themselves of the preference given to such men over civilians under the Gov-

SERVICE AND EX-SERVICE MEN.


—
Applications made on or before 1st December,1920.
Applications made after 1st December, 1920.


1. Total Applications received by Councils for holdings
48,917
7,179


2. Applicants settled on small holdings
 15,611
1,190


3. Applicants approved and not yet provided with Holdings.
6,054
1,165


4. Applicants interviewed and finally rejected as un-suitable.
3,105
397


5. Applicants withdrawn or removed from the list, excluding those entered in (4).
22,357
1,388


6. Applicants waiting interview or standing over, excluding those in (3).
1,790
3,039

I may explain that the above figures refer to the position as at the 16th January last. The usual six-monthly returns, which will show the position as at the 16th July, are now being collected, and I will send up-to-date figures to the hon. Member as soon as the returns have been completed.

In addition to the above, 472 ex-service men have been settled on the Ministry's Farm Settlements exclusive of settlements transferred to Councils, and 1,623 applicant withdrawn, rejected or removed from the lists. No applicants who applied prior to 1st December, 1920, now remain on the Ministry's list, and none have, since that date, been added to the list.

RE-INSTATEMBNT (GEORGETOWN).

Mr. R. MURRAY: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that land at Georgetown, Renfrewshire, belonging to the nation and extending to about 600 acres, has been or is about to be sold for use as a game preserve; and that there have been many applications by ex-service men for small holdings on this estate; and, in view of the suitability of this land, with its Government-owned houses, for small holdings, whether he can see his way to having it utilised in this manner rather than for the preservation of game?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I would

ernment scheme were required to send in their applications before the 1st December, 1920. Separate figures are, therefore, given below as regards applications received before and after that date.

refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) on the 5th June. I understand that as part of the settlement of claims for reinstatement the Disposal and Liquidation Commission have transferred an area acquired by the Commission to the owner of another part of the land. I have no knowledge of the use to which it will be put. The demand by ex-service men for holdings on this land is not large, and, as I stated in my previous reply, the area does not offer good prospects for a small holdings scheme, as the land is largely occupied by buildings and foundations. Any existing application to the Board of Agriculture by ex-service men can be more suitably considered in connection with other schemes in the same district.

Mr. MURRAY: Have not hundreds of acres being cut off for foundations and buildings equally suitable for small holdings, and is there not an urgent demand on the part of ex-service men for that portion of the ground?

Captain ELLIOT: I have replied to that question in the answer I have just given. There are, of course, portions that are not so cut up as other portions, but you must read the area as a whole.

Mr. MURRAY: Could not portions be so utilised?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

COUNTY COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. EDE: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many county agricultural committees have at any time since their creation paid the travelling expenses of their members; how many now pay them; and what contribution towards these expenses is made by the Ministry?

Sir R. SANDERS: In 56 of the 62 counties in England and Wales the county scheme originally provided for the payment of travelling expenses to members of the agricultural committee, and in 34 cases this provision still remains. I doubt, however, if expenses are now actually being paid in more than a few counties, but exact information on the point could only be obtained by circularising county councils on the subject. The Ministry has not contributed in respect of expenses of the kind referred to since the 31st March, 1922.

Mr. ROYCE: Seeing that great advantages are undoubtedly obtained by the presence of men who could not pay their own expenses, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question as to whether the Department cannot contribute towards the expenses?

Sir R. SANDERS: This was one of the expenses which it was definitely decided last year should be cut down.

SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. EDE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many scholarships have been awarded by his Department this year to the children of agricultural workers; how many of the recipients are children of workers earning not more than 25s. per week; how many are children of workers earning over 25s., but not over 30s. per week; and how many are children of workers earning over 30s. per week?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the awards have not yet been made, I regret that I cannot give the particulars desired.

Mr. EDE: When will the awards of these particular scholarships be made?

Sir R. SANDERS: They are actually to be made on Wednesday next, 1st August, and will then be submitted to me for approval.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (LADY VISITORS)

Mr. FLANAGAN: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the desirability of setting aside a room in the House of Commons where Members' wives can wait for them?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): I am sorry that adequate additional accommodation is not available, and I am therefore unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. There are two rooms downstairs, which hon. Members cannot have discovered, that are available for ladies visiting the House, and I think that probably ought to meet the case.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a room—two rooms put into one—already available for that purpose, and is he also aware of this fact, that that is not generally known, and will he take means to publish the fact?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is accommodation available for the husbands of Lady Members?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are rooms allocated to Lady Members of the House, but that hon. Members cannot take their ladies there?

Sir J. BAIRD: There appears to be some misunderstanding. There is a room which is entirely for the use of Lady Members, and there are two rooms next door, which are for the use of ladies visiting the House, whether they are the wives of Members or other ladies.

ST. JAMES'S PARK.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 38.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, now that water has been reintroduced into the bed of the lake in St. James's Park, he will consider the reintroduction of a certain number of fish into the lake if this can be done without any expense to his Department?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am happy to be able to assure my hon. Friend that small fish in large quantities have already taken up their quarters in the St. James's Park Lake at no expense to my Department.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In stocking the lake above the surface, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to introduce a very attractive supply of water fowl?

Sir J. BAIRD: In course of time and in the process of Nature, I hope such a supply will be obtained.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the course of Nature produce sufficient variety?

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the issue of Circular No. 424, dated 23rd July, to boards of guardians, a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination in the form set out in the Schedule to the Vaccination Act, 1907, will be accepted by vaccination officers in place of the new form to be issued by the Ministry?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The form of statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination which will be issued by my Department to vaccination officers will be the form set out in the Schedule to the Vaccination Act, 1907. The Act provides that these statutory declarations must be made in that form or in a form to the like effect.

Mr. THOMSON: Do I understand that the existing form in the Schedule of the Vaccination Act, 1907, will not be accepted in future? Will it be illegal for conscientious objectors to put in the form shown in the Schedule of the Act of 1907?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: What is the authority for that? Does the Act give the right hon. Gentleman power to say that a person must go to a certain place to get a form? Does not the Act say merely that the statutory declaration must be made in proper form?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, but I have not said that a person must go to the vaccination officer to get it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the answer he gave about a week ago.

63. The hon. Member asked the Minister whether he will explain why
he has issued an Order requiring a person making a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination to make such declaration only on a form supplied by the vaccination officer, in view of the provision in the Vaccination Act, 1907, Section 3, permitting the use of the form set out in the Schedule to the Act or a form to the like effect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Vaccination Order recently issued states that these declarations must be made in a form which may be obtained from the vaccination officer or in a form to the like effect. The form issued to vaccination officers will be the form set out in the Schedule to the Vaccination Act, 1907.

Mr. LANSBURY: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Order does not mean that a person who wishes to make a conscientious objection must apply to the vaccination officer for the form?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE SHIPPING FREIGHTS AND RATES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department has taken, or is taking, any action in the direction of making representations to the shipping companies in respect of the heavy freight and passenger rates to various parts of the British Empire?

Viscount WOLMER: Any specific complaints that are received are inquired into, and such action as is possible is taken with regard to them.

COTTON (IMPORTS FROM EMPIRE).

Mr. WISE: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the Dominions, Crown Colonies, or Protectorates send bales of cotton to Great Britain; and the number of bales of cotton sent in each case?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer contains a number of figures, my hon. Friend will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the quantities of raw cotton imported into the United Kingdom, during the year 1922, consigned from various British countries (including Protectorates) overseas. I am unable to state the quantities in bales as, in order to secure uniformity in the records, quantities of raw cotton are required to be stated on importation in centals of 100 lbs.

Imports consigned from:



Centals of 100 lbs.


British India and Ceylon
441,737


Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
80,525


Nigeria 
62,067


Kenya and Uganda Protectorate
 93,587


Nyasaland Protectorate
11,901


British West Indies
16,509


South Africa
14,903


Australia
12,309


Other British Countries
9,144

TERRITORIAL WATERS (UNITED STATES' PROPOSALS).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to publish the terms of the United States' proposals relative to the right of search beyond the three-mile limit?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret to say that the United States Government have objected to the publication of their proposals at present.

RESTORATION OF ORDER IN IRELAND ACT (REGULATIONS).

Captain BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make a statement, relative to the inquiry into the Regulations made under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; I have now appointed Mr. George Talbot, K.C., Mr. Walter Runciman, and Lord Chelmsford to be a Committee to review the provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and of the Regulations made under that Act, and to report
what, if any, powers thereby conferred should in the public interest be retained, whether temporarily or permanently. Mr. Talbot will be the Chairman of the Committee.

Captain BENN: Will the Report be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would like to consider that question.

Captain Viscount CURZON: How many members of that Committee belong to the Conservative party?

STATE RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HAYES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the adoption by the Government of the principle of State railway construction in our African Colonies, the Government proposes to consider the similar adoption of State railway construction in this country in case of need; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons for this difference of policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: The relationship between the State and the railways and the extent to which the State should participate in railway construction in this country or the Colonies must necessarily depend largely upon local considerations. So far as this country is concerned, I do not propose at present to take steps to alter the existing relationship, which, as the hon. Member is aware, was carefully considered by Parliament so recently as 1921.

HOFFMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. F. GRAY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate an inquiry into the circumstances of the association of His Majesty's Government with the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited; the purchase and sale of interests therein; the loss sustained by the country in connection therewith; and the circumstances of, reasons for, and amount of such loss?

Mr. G. WHITE: 92.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who was responsible for the terms of sale of the Government holding in the Hoffman Manufacturing Company?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Government purchased the whole of the issued capital of this company during the War, when the extension of supply of ball bearings was of vital importance. The sale of the Government assets was made by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, with the concurrence of the Treasury. As already stated, the sale was widely advertised, and the best offer, which was in excess of the reserve price, was accepted. I see no reason for the inquiry proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray).

Mr. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, in taking over a good going business such as the Hoffman Manufacturing Company was, it was necessary to lose it? Why could we not sell it again as a going concern?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We sold it at the best price we could get.

Mr. HARDIE: Why did you not sell it as a going concern, as you got it?

Mr. F. GRAY: May I inquire the amount of the loss sustained by this country through this transaction?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is really exceedingly difficult, impossible, in fact, as I think I have answered before, to state the loss, because the loss cannot be determined; there was very great profit to the country from having been able to control this manufacture.

Mr. GRAY: Is this House not entitled to know the loss, so that we may form an opinion as to whether the gain is equal to the loss?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the House is entitled to all information.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the difference between the price paid and the price received?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will try to get that for the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPOEE BASE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Count Uchida, the Foreign Minister for Japan,
has expressed the opinion in a public interview that the establishment of a new naval base at Singapore conflicted in many ways with the spirit of the Washington Agreement, and for which there was nothing in Anglo-Japanese relations to require such an extensive undertaking; and whether he will enter into a frank discussion with the Japanese Government before finally committing the country to this large expenditure?

The PRIME MINISTER: Count Uchida was incorrectly reported. It is now officially denied that he stated that the Singapore base conflicted with the spirit of the Washington Treaties. His Majesty's Government do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by raising a discussion with the Japanese Government on this subject. During the Washington Conference they made it 'clear that they reserved their liberty of action at Singapore, and this was fully understood by the other Governments concerned.

Mr. LAMBERT: Considering that trade is so bad, and this base will cost so much money, is it not possible to postpone it for a time?

Captain BERKELEY: Is it a fact that the Japanese Minister stated that, owing to the proximity of the proposed dock to Formosa, it will be necessary for Japan to take special defensive measures?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what he meant when he said, "they made it clear that they reserved their liberty of action at Singapore"? Was there any document or statement made which could be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; not that I know.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was stated in the recent Debate that the matter was not discussed at Washington, and that they were not informed?

AIR ARM.

Captain BENN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision will be arrived at in reference to a naval air arm
before the House rises; and, if not, whether he can give a pledge that no new organisation will be set up before Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position to make a statement before the House rises.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what day I may put down a question?

The PRIME MINISTER: Will it do if I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman notice, so that he may put a question down by private notice?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GOVERNMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. SHINWELL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has formed any estimate as regards trade prospects for next winter; and whether, in the event of further' depression, the Cabinet propose to put into operation schemes to meet the situation, particularly in relation to the question of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in Committee of Supply on the 18th July, and, as regards the last part of the question, to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade relating to trade prospects in the coming winter, is it not desirable for the Government to put before the House, before the Adjournment, some scheme which it is proposed to put into operation?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member may have forgotten that a discussion on this subject was promised, and will, I believe, as a matter of fact, take place to-morrow.

DOCK WORKERS (HULL AND GRIMSBY).

Mr. W. THORNE: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give any reason why he sent out instructions both to the Hull and Grimsby Employment
Exchanges that all transport workers who were in receipt of unemployment benefit up to the time of the dispute are now disqualified, and have been for the past few weeks, from obtaining further benefit; and if he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Benefit was disallowed at Hull and Grimsby by the chief insurance officer, who held that dock workers at those ports were disqualified for benefit on and after 2nd July, during the continuance of the stoppage due to the dispute. The dock workers and their association had the usual right of appeal to the Court of Referees and the Umpire, and at Hull there were appeals to the Court of Referees, which upheld the insurance officer's decision.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other than dock workers have had their unemployment pay stopped; and can he tell the House what is the definition of a "transport worker"?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member knows that the action of the chief insurance officer is in pursuance of a statutory duty under the Act; it is open to appeal, and with that statutory right the Ministry of Labour has no right to interfere.

Mr. THORNE: You are driving the men to rebellion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PUBLICITY OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether there are any publicity Departments in any Government offices or Government officials engaged, wholly or partly, in publicity work at the present time: if so, in which Departments; and what is the total annual cost of this publicity work?

Viscount CURZON: 62.
asked the Prime Minister which Departments now have publicity branches which did not exist prior to 1914; and whether there is any necessity to continue the existence of these publicity branches?

The PRIME MINISTER: Publicity officers are at present employed under
the Air Ministry, Colonial Office, General Post Office, India Office, National Savings Committee, Ministry of Pensions and War Office. Their total annual salaries amount to £5,520. None of these posts existed prior to 1914. The question of the continued existence of the posts is being considered on the merits of each case.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that is the only expenditure on publicity? I asked what was the cost of publicity work. Apart from the salaries of officers, is there no expenditure?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the answer I have given is correct, but this matter, I understand, is going to be raised on Wednesday in debate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What are the duties of these publicity Departments?

The PRIME MINISTER: That can be explained in the debate on Wednesday.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Who was responsible for the last effort in the General Post Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: That matter will be raised on Wednesday.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the Prime Minister himself propose to explain the matter generally?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not considered that at the moment.

Captain BERKELEY: Is the foreign news service a publicity Department?

The PRIME MINISTER: That matter also, I think, can be discussed on Wednesday.

PENSIONS (WAR SERVICE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the pensions of officers and men of the Army and Navy who rejoined for the late War have been reassessed and substantial increases granted under Orders in Council, he will say if the Government intend to carry out the declared intention of the late Government that all Government servants should be treated alike; and, if so, will the pensions of civil servants who returned to duty on war service be reassessed and increased?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware to what cases in particular my hon. and gallant Friend is referring, but the Acts and Regulations with regard to civil pensions are, of course, different from those relating to Army and Navy pensions and, if the retired civil servants in question were re-employed in an unpensionable capacity, such service would not be reckonable under the Superannuation Acts for increase of pension. If my hon. Friend has any definite case, and will let me have particulars, I will thoroughly inquire into it.

POST OFFICE SORTERSHIPS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that each of the 902 candidates who sat for the competition for sorterships in London last March paid an entrance fee of 10s.; whether he can state for what purpose the £451 thus received has been used; what part of it was expended in meeting the necessary costs of the examination; and whether the balance will be returned to the unsuccessful candidates?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The cost to the Civil Service Commission of an examination is sometimes in excess and sometimes in defect of the fees received for that examination. The fees are not appropriated to meet the expense of the particular examination, but are paid direct to the Exchequer. The cost of the examination now referred to exceeded the receipts from fees. The latter part of the question does not appear to arise.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the very large number of applicants and the very small number of vacancies, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a good case has been made out for returning the entrance fees for this examination?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In this particular instance—into which I have inquired—it is clear there is no case, for the cost exceeded the receipts.

Mr. MORRISON: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that here there were 1,600 entrants for five vacancies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I imagine that the cost was greater, in view of the number of applicants.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 1,600 applicants would have paid 12s. each had they been told there were only five vacancies?

Mr. MOSLEY: Is there any competition in the Publicity Departments?

TURKEY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE).

Mr. PONSONBY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided to send a Diplomatic Representative to Angora; and whether any appointment has yet been made?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Mr. PRETYMAN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached as to the facilities to be given for the remaining stages of the Merchandise Marks Bill during the Autumn Session?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to reply. The Government are prepared to assume responsibility for the Merchandise Marks Bill, and have authorised me to take charge of the Bill in its remaining stages during the Autumn Session.

Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that the House will rise before Christmas?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Standing Orders going to be altered so as to pass this Bill?

NURSES REGISTRATION.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, under Section 3 (2) (c) of The Nurses Registration Act, 1919, rules are to be made enabling persons who have been
bona fide engaged in practice as nurses under certain conditions to be admitted to the register, providing application is made within a period of two years after the date on which a rule first comes into operation, and that a rule first came into operation on 7th July, 1923; can he now say whether persons to whom this rule applies may, if otherwise qualified, be admitted to the register; and whether he has satisfied himself that the General Nursing Council is Correctly interpreting the Act and the new rule?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has not quoted the Act correctly. The wording of the Section in question is "the date on which the rules to be made under the provisions of this paragraph first come into operation," and I am advised that the effect of the provision is to allow a period of two years from the date when the first body of rules came into operation. This date was the 14th July, 1921, and the two years period having now expired, the General Nursing Council have no power to admit further applications for registration as existing nurses.

COST-OF-LIVING FIGURES.

Mr. FLANAGAN: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the dissatisfaction generally expressed at the cost-of-living figures, he will consider the advisability of adopting a new system of arriving at these figures which will generate more confidence?

Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on Thursday last to this question, which was answered in conjunction with that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Salford West (Lieut.-Commander Astbury).

Mr. FLANAGAN: As the basic cost of living figure is of such importance to the working people, who have to establish their wages, in many cases, upon it, is in possible to establish it on an agreed basis?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am perfectly aware of the fact stated by my hon. Friend, and, indeed, it is common knowledge to every Member of the House, but
if he will look at the reply to which I have referred, he will find that it gives him the answer.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one point makes millions of pounds difference in wages to the working men of this country?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am also aware of that point, and it was dealt with in the answer to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

HANDICRAFT TEACHERS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a circular issued by the Board fixes 1st August, 1924, as the date when the new standard of qualifications of handicraft teachers is to come into operation; whether the Standing Joint Committee has arbitrarily fixed on 1st April, 1914, as the date for differentiation in salaries of qualified handicraft teachers, thereby causing a number to suffer serious reductions in salary; and, in view of these facts, whether he intends to take any steps to mitigate the hardships unexpectedly caused by the Report of the Standing Joint Committee?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With respect to the second and third parts, I regret I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on the 18th June last to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves).

Mr. MORRISON: 77.
also asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the date fixed in Paragraph 6e of the Report of the Standing Joint Committee (Elementary) for the Differentiation in Salaries of Handicraft Teachers is 1st April, 1914; and, seeing that the date of recognition of the handicraft diploma by the Board is 1st August each year, whether he will take steps to secure that the date for the differentiation of salaries shall be brought into line with the date of recognition?

Mr. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative I may point out that 1st April, 1914, is
the date on which the teacher must have been appointed, and not the date upon which his diploma must have been obtained or recognised. The date in question was deliberately chosen by the Burnham Committee after full consideration of all the circumstances, and I see no ground for departing from their recommendations in this respect.

TREATMENT AND CLEANSING CENTRES.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the method of assessing grant in connection with the attendances of pupils from public elementary schools at treatment and cleansing centres; and whether, seeing that the method of recording details of individual attendances involves a considerable amount of expenditure both by the Board of Education and the local authorities, he will consider the advisability of accepting for statistical purposes a five years' average of the attendances of public elementary school children at medical treatment and cleansing centres?

Mr. WOOD: The attendances of children from public elementary schools at these centres may, if a special register of the attendances is kept at the centres, be reckoned as attendances at the schools to which the children belong, for the purpose of calculating average attendance. The Board have already had before them the suggestion put forward in the last part of the question, but I regret that they were unable to accept it. I shall be glad, if my hon. Friend so desires, to consider any further representations he may wish to make on the matter, and I am quite ready to consider suggestions for alternative methods of record at the centres.

SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (GRANT).

Sir C. COBB: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education why, in the case of a secondary school teacher in the London service who was fully qualified for a good honours degree by obtaining the M.Sc. (London) in July, 1921, the Board of Education have refused to recognise for grant the expenditure involved in granting such allowances for the period 1st August, 1921, to 31st March, 1922?

Mr. WOOD: In the particular case to which, no doubt, my hon. Friend is refer-
ring, the authority did not apply for the recognition of the payment in question for the purposes of grant until October, 1922, though the teacher obtained her qualification 15 months earlier. The Board have now, generally speaking, no authority to recognise for grant expenditure on retrospective payments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RHINE ARMY OF OCCUPATION (PAY).

Mr. WISE: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the price at which the mark was taken each week for the last six weeks for payment of the British soldiers on the Rhine?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The official rates of exchange at which the troops on the Rhine were paid were:


1923.
Marks—£1.


22nd to 28th June
696,000


29th June to 5th July
696,000


6th to 12th July
864,000


13th to 19th July
864,000


20th to 26th July
1,800,000


27th July to 2nd August
4,200,000

MEAT CONTRACTS.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what has been the average price of foreign meat supplied to the Army during the last quarter; and what was the average price tendered for the same period for home-killed meat?

Mr. GWYNNE: It is the invariable practice of the Department to treat contract prices as strictly confidential, and I regret that in these circumstances I am not in a position to state the actual average prices. I may say, however, that the prices tendered for fresh meat for the period 1st July to 31st December, 1923, showed generally an excess of 100 per cent. or more over those for frozen meat, though for a few individual stations the excess was somewhat less. No effective comparison is practicable for the period before 1st July, for which tenders for fresh meat were received only in a few isolated cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SILENCERS AND SMOKE EMISSION.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 84.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Regulations in regard to the use of silencers by motor cyclists, and to the emission of smoke by coal-using transport vehicles, are persistently ignored; and will he, in the interests of the health and comfort of the general public, take steps to secure an abatement of these nuisances by the strict enforcement of the Regulations by all police authorities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I do not accept the statement that the Regulations in question are persistently ignored. As I stated on 24th July, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the. Member for Totnes (Major Harvey), the enforcement of the law is a matter for the individual police authorities, and the Minister of Transport has no powers in the matter.

MOTOR LICENCES (ENDORSEMENT).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 97.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he will include in the Bill which his Department is preparing for the further regulation of road traffic a Clause providing that where a motorist's licence is endorsed more than a limited number of times he shall be disqualified from holding one in future?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think the suggestion of the hon. Member is the best means of effecting the object which he has in view. An endorsement on a motorist's driving licence can only result from a conviction in a Court of Law, and it is for the Court to decide whether the circumstances justify the suspension of the licence or the disqualification of the driver from holding any further licence for such time as the Court think fit. Ample powers for this purpose are bestowed by Section 4 of the Motor Car Act, 1903.

TOURIST TICKETS.

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: 98.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that passengers can travel with tourist tickets from London to Glasgow, but not from Glasgow to London, on the assumption
apparently that London is less of a tourist centre than Glasgow, and that a passenger from London to Glasgow can have 100 lbs. of luggage carried free, whereas from Glasgow to London only 60 lbs. is allowed; and if he will use his influence to have these and similar railway anomalies remedied?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question, and I understand that it is not the practice of the railway companies to issue tourist tickets for journeys to London from other places. The matter has already been considered by the companies, who have not seen their way to vary the existing arrangements, and in the circumstances I do not see my way to take any action in the matter. I am informed that third-class passengers between London and Glasgow in either direction are allowed to take with them 100 lbs. of luggage free of charge.

Mr. MURRAY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it is his duty to see that tourist ticket advantages are given to all parts of the country as well as to London?

Colonel ASHLEY: I know what my duty is in the matter, but I have no power.

Mr. STURROCK: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is powerless to act, can he tell us before which Department we can bring this matter, in order that they may bring it before the railway companies?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have made representations to the railway companies, but I have only powers of persuasion.

Mr. W. THORNE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman states from time to time that he has no power. If that be so, what is the good of his office?

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.

Mr. W. A. JENKINS: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount collected during the last fiscal year in respect of Inhabited House Duty, and the approximate cost of collection of the same; and, inasmuch as the amount collected is so small in proportion to the cost entailed, will he consider the question of abolishing Inhabited House Duty altogether?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The approximate net receipt of Inhabited House Duty during the year 1922–23 was £2,078,000. I regret that it is impossible to isolate the cost of collecting the separate duties under the management of the Inland Revenue; but as the Inhabited House Duty is collected concurrently with the Income Tax, it may, I think, be taken that the cost of its collection is very small.

WAR BOND POLICIES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing number of cases of hardship brought to light as a result of the recent conviction of the Prudential Assurance Company for fraudulent misrepresentation in the issue of their five per cent. war bond policies, he will authorise the Public Prosecutor to give assistance in those cases where he is satisfied that similar fraud has taken place and where the victims are too poor to take action themselves?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions are confined to criminal proceedings.

Mr. THOMSON: Are not the Government able to do anything to help the innocent victims who have been defrauded of their money?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I assure the hon. Gentleman I have made inquiries to-day, and the utmost care has been taken to sift the evidence to see whether prosecution is possible or desirable; I cannot hurry; I am doing my best.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a warrant for perjury has been issued at Hull against one of the agents of this company?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope it will be well-founded.

INEBRIATES.

Mr. W. A. JENKINS: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the
present Act by giving magistrates the power to place inebriates upon the black list without their own consent?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I regret that I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this matter.

Mr. JENKINS: In view of the fact that a large number of our fellow beings, men and women, are confirmed inebriates, will the Home Secretary not reconsider this matter and give the magistrates authority to blacklist these people, and so try to arrest them in their downward rush to destruction; and also minimise the tragedy to themselves and their families and friends? Might I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot get it if he remain standing.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Can the Home Secretary not do something to stop the production of the inebriate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is a very difficult question, and it has been most carefully considered; but I do not see any chance of introducing the legislation which the hon. Gentleman desires.

POLICE SERVICE (AGE LIMIT).

Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNER: 85.
asked the Home Secretary whether any recommendation which may be made by the newly-appointed Committee on the Police Service as to the adoption of an age limit for retirement on pension will affect members of the police force who are already entitled to retire?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the Committee should make any recommendation on this subject, it is clear that it could not affect the position of men already entitled to give notice of their desire to retire on pension.

Mr. HAYES: Will that statement also be applicable to the other portion of the terms of reference, in regard to the question of pay and superannuation deductions, without any change in the existing conditions of the salaries of the serving police? Will it not be a breach of faith?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question which, I think, had better be put down; I would rather see it on the Paper before giving an answer.

SUPER-TAX.

Mr. W. THORNE: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figures of individuals assessed to Super-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1923.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley on the 17th July. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

LATE SIR T. GLEN COATES (ESTATE VALUATION).

Mr. W. THORNE: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the estate of the late Sir Thomas Glen Coates, who died at Paisley in July of last year, had to be re-valued at £1,725,600 on the net addition of £50,974 to the original value of £1,674,806; and if he can state who is responsible for making the mistake?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon Member is under a misapprehension in believing that any mistake has been made in connection with the valuation of the estate referred to for purposes of the Death Duties. At the time when the inventory of the estate was lodged it was stated by the executors that there were further assets, the value of which could not at the time be ascertained, and they undertook to lodge a corrective affidavit and pay the additional duty in respect of those assets when the value was ascertained. The increased value of the estate in question is due to the added value of the further assets, and not to a re-valuation of those originally disclosed.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is someone not liable to be prosecuted for not sending in correct information?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that in nine cases out of ten the executors lodge corrective affidavits, and that in nearly every case that goes before the probate authorities a corrective affidavit is necessary.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I swore one myself only last week, and I hope that I shall not be liable to prosecution.

Mr. W. THORNE: Was it a correct one?

MINING DISASTERS (MALTBY MAIN AND GARTSHORE).

Mr. LUNN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines how many lives have been lost in the disastrous explosions at Maltby Main Colliery in Yorkshire and at Gartshore in Scotland; whether any of the men in the pit are likely to be got out alive; and whether he has anything further to report on the disaster?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give the House any information with regard to the disaster that has overtaken the Maltby Main miners. Further, will he assure the House that everything will be done to avoid further loss of life, and will he take steps to relieve the distress of those bereaved?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): The circumstances of these two most regrettable disasters are, as far as information is at present available, as follow:

MALTBY MAIN.

All coal-getting at this colliery had been suspended for some days before Saturday owing to a serious gob fire, and the work underground was confined to the construction of four dams with the object of stopping off the fire. On Saturday morning, about 9 o'clock, while this work was proceeding, an explosion of firedamp inside the dams was apparently communicated to an explosive mixture of firedamp and air outside the dams. The explosion occurred in the neighbourhood of the stoppings in one of the cross-gates and the adjacent face.
As soon as the news reached the surface, rescue and exploration parties were organised by the officials there. Persons engaged at the other dams escaped injury and came out safely. Two were slightly affected by the violence of the blast and lost their lights, but managed to make their way out.
An exploration party found the badly mutilated body of C. Renshaw some distance in-bye. Beyond, heavy falls of roof prevented further access. From the evidence of the violence of the explosion it was concluded that there was no hope of any of the persons (26 in number) engaged further in-bye being alive. Later, about 6 p.m., a further visit was paid to the scene by a party including Mr. Jackson, the Managing Director, Mr. Herbert Smith, President of the Miners' Federation, Mr. J. H. Humphrys, His Majesty's Inspector, and others, the object being solely to confirm the opinion previously formed as to the hopelessness of saving any lives or, for the time being, recovering any more bodies. On this point, I regret to say, there is no room for any doubt.
The Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines has been at the colliery since Saturday afternoon, and the Chief Inspector, who was on leave, has gone there this morning. My staff will continue to keep in close touch with the progress of events.

GARTSHORE.

This accident took place in a level stone-drift water lodgment which was in course of completion from the bottom of Gartshore No. 3 shaft. A shift of 12 men were at work in this lodgment on Saturday afternoon about 60 feet from the shaft, in the neighbourhood of a wall that had been built across the lodgment on a set of girders six inches from the floor level. While they were so engaged an explosion took place which threw the wall over 10 of the men. Seven were killed outright, one died shortly after-wards, and two were injured.
As to the cause of the explosion, I should prefer to await the result of the inquiry which will be made before committing myself to a definite statement, but the evidence at present available points to its having been an ignition of an accumulation of gas by a naked light.
I am sure that I shall be voicing the opinion of the House when I express the deepest sympathy with the relatives of those killed and hopes for the recovery of the injured at Gartshore, as well as admiration for the brave efforts made by all concerned to rescue any who might have survived.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask—and I hope hon. Members will be
as indulgent as they usually are in such painful circumstances—if the Minister has any information from his inspectors which would lead him to believe that the action of the colliery company or the local committee was wise when, after the colliery had actually been stopped because of the presence of gob fires, men were permitted to enter the mine in such large numbers as were there when the explosion actually took place?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: This was a case of great gallantry on the part of men who volunteered to go down, with the concurrence of a very able committee, including Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Miners' Federation. They volunteered to go down to try and save the pit. We shall, no doubt, hear more about this later, but I think, in view of the facts, it would be very unfair to throw any blame on anyone.

Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department have taken any means to relieve the thousands of people who are, and will be for some time, without income, and will he be able to indicate to the House before its rising on Thursday what steps are being taken in that direction to aid the sufferers, in whatever way it may be possible for the Department to do so?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: That is not a thing which can be initiated by my Department directly, but of course we shall do everything possible to encourage and assist any movement in that direction. These things are generally done locally, and I have no doubt that in this case also everything possible will be done.

Mr. HARDIE: This is not the first occurrence of the kind, and in view of past experience in trying to build dams around gob fires—and I can remember such an experience when I was a boy of 12—is it not the case that the moment you have built the dam round and enclosed the fire you increase the amount of gas outside? I would ask the Minister whether, in view of what he said about the gallantry of the men who went down to try to save the pit, he will advise hon. Members on the benches behind him to take that fact into consideration when discussing the question of a minimum wage for miners?

ELLIS ISLAND (TREATMENT OF BRITISH EMIGRANTS).

Captain BERKELEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the serious allegations made by Mr. E. C. Mordaunt as to the conditions to which British subjects are subjected at Ellis Island; whether he will at once cause the statements of this gentleman to be investigated both here and by the British representative in America; and whether he will make a statement before the rising of the House as to the steps which His Majesty's Government propose in order to protect British subjects from these indignities?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government possess no information with regard to Mr. Mordaunt's allegations, beyond what has appeared in the Press. I shall however be glad to arrange for this gentleman to have an interview at the Foreign Office should he so desire. His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Washington is being instructed to make immediate inquiries into Mr. Mordaunt's case. The question of controlling the number of emigrants from this country to the United States of America, with a view to prevent the exceeding of the quota, is being examined. Meanwhile His Majesty's Government do not consider it advisable to make a statement in Parliament, but Sir A. Geddes' Report on the conditions prevailing at Ellis Island, drawn up in January last, is about to be laid as a Parliamentary Paper.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Mordaunt is only one of fifty-one, and if the others or any of them are able and willing to come forward, will he receive their statements?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no doubt we shall be glad to receive all the information available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MacDONALD: Before coming to the Division on the Motion on the Paper,
may I ask whether the Government intend to confine themselves to the first four Orders on the Paper, as announced last week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. MacDONALD: Only the four?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. PRINGLE: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect us to sit?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 127.

Division No. 339.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Flanagan, W. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murchison, C. K.


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leipold C. M. S.
Furness, G. J.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Apsley, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Garland, C. S.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir R. Park
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Pease, William Edwin


Banks, Mitchell
Gretton, Colonel John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Perring, William George


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Halstead, Major D.
Peto, Basil E.


Berry, Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Philipson, Mabel


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harrison, F. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Color Assheton


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hawke, John Anthony
Preston, Sir W. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Privett, F. J.


Briggs, Harold
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Bruford, R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bruton, Sir James
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remer, J. R.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Remnant, Sir James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Houfton, John Plowright
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)


Button, H. S.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hughes, Collingwood
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Clayton, G. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sandon, Lord


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Singleton, J. E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cope, Major William
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lever, Sir Arthur L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lorimer, H. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Tubbs, S. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
White, Lt. Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)



Winfrey, Sir Richard
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Commander the Rt. Hon. B. M. Eyres-Monsell and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Winterton, Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Wise, Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.



Wolmer, Viscount
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hillary, A. E.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hinds, John
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Attlee, C. R.
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Salter, Dr. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Irving, Dan
Scrymgeour, E.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bonwick, A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Jowett, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buckle, J.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lawson, John James
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford. S.)


Chapple, W. A.
Leach, W.
Spoor, B. G.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lee, F.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Sturrock, J. Long


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Linfield, F. C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duncan, C.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thornton, M.


Dunnico, H.
McLaren, Andrew
Turner, Ben


Ede, James Chuter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edmonds, G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Webb, Sidney


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Falconer, J.
Middleton, G.
Weir, L. M.


Foot, Isaac
Morel, E. D.
White, Charles F. (Derby. Western)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead. E.)


Gosling, Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Wintringham, Margaret


Hardie, George D.
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Harney, E. A.
Phillipps, Vivian
Wright, W.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.(N'castle, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Riley, Ben



Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir CHARLES HENRY WILSON, for the Borough of Leeds (Central Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Church of Scotland Ministers' and Scottish University Professors' Widows' Fund Order Confirmation Bill,
Dover Harbour Bill, without Amendment.
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill,
West Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Drainage) Bill,

Chesterfield Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to,

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal the enactments providing the protection of wild birds and to substitute other provisions therefor." Wild Birds Protection Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. Neville Chamberlain.)

Mr. FOOT: I wish to make some comments upon the Motion before the House, and, in the first instance, to express my very considerable surprise that no statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the Amendments which the House is now asked to consider. It was only, I think, a fortnight ago, or just over a fortnight ago, that the right hon. Gentleman, in asking the House to give a Third Reading to the Bill, said that he looked forward to the division with equanimity and to the future with much confidence. He has not left the future very long to take care of itself, because the Bill which he commended to the House has been altered in very many important respects in the other House and has been altered, not by the critics of the Measure, but by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, representing the Ministry of Health. There were at that time very severe criticisms made of the Bill, and those on this side of the House rather deplored the fact that those criticisms were received by the right hon. Gentleman with something less than his ordinary courtesy. They were received apparently with resentment and with a certain amount of petulance.

Mr. PRINGLE: And derision on the other side.

Mr. FOOT: And when criticism was directed particularly to Clause 3, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to express himself in ordinary prose, but broke into poetry. It will be remembered that he called to our minds the words of the nursery rhyme
Do you really wonder, Jane,
When to me it seems so plain?
I remember that on Clause 3 I had the temerity in Committee to put the
question, "Have the Law Officers been consulted?" and the answer given was that the Law Officers had not been consulted, because the whole matter was perfectly plain. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman did not wish the Law Officers to be called in lest they should mar the symmetry of the perfected work. The prophecies which I then made, when I suggested that whatever might be the approval of this Measure upon that side of the House there would be very strong remarks made particularly in the County Courts of the country before many months passed, have been fulfilled much earlier than I expected, because our comments in this House, made by myself and other critics, were mild compared with the comments that have been used in another place. In another place, someone, making a reference to the Bill, said that the action of the right hon. Gentleman, in putting an incomprehensible Bill before the House and the country, was only comparable to the action of one of the old Roman Emperors who wrote his Acts of Parliament on the top of a high pillar in very small letters so that no one could read them and then punished people for not obeying the law which they could not see to read. I hope hon. Members who were inclined to applaud the right hon. Gentleman only a fortnight ago will during the Recess read some of the. language used in another place, language, beyond the capacity of some of us in this House. They seem to look upon it as a piece of Jabberwork draftsmanship, and, although much was said here in its defence, there was nothing said there. It was perfectly plain in this House, but the child that had been so cherished and so proudly fondled by the right hon. Gentleman in this House, when it got in the other House, was disowned by all and no one would recognise it.
No defence of the Clause was put up at all by his colleague, but as soon as the attack was made the Noble Lord said, "do not shoot; I am coming down." He said the Clause would be redrafted, and Clause 3, that was particularly the offending Clause which gave rise to the comments and criticisms in this House, has been now remarkably altered. If hon. Members will turn to the Lords Amendments, they will see that in order to deal with something. which the right hon. Gentleman said was perfectly plain the Clause has been
recast and extended to nearly five pages of Parliamentary Papers. I think it is a very great improvement that we should have had that Clause entirely recast. It is a very great advantage, but, when we come later to consider the particular Amendments, I shall ask the House, unless some other Member takes the opportunity of doing so before me, to consider one or two Amendments that will. I think, put the landlords in a perfectly fair position and give them the advantages that they should have but not the very extended privileges which the Clause now proposes to confer upon them. I assume that it would be in order for me to deal particularly with Clause 3 and this recast Clause when the matter comes up for further consideration.
There are very many other vital matters raised in the Lords Amendments. Hon. Members will see that it is intended to insert a new Clause dealing with the proposal in the Bill that gives to the landlord power to recover anything from his tenant if he has made a mistake in this notice that he has served. I remember that great objection was raised, in the first instance, by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and by others, who said that it was retrospective legislation of the worst form, and that the right hon. Gentleman, if he was introducing retrospective legislation, ought to put in some limit of time. We were practically scoffed at for making that suggestion, and the right hon. Gentleman said that we could safely leave it to the discretion of the County Court Judges. What has happened in the other place? His colleague has actually adopted the suggestion which we then made, and he has limited that power of recovery to six months. I think that that is a perfectly fair proposal, but one wonders why it was not made in this House, and why our criticism was set aside as being worthless and then immediately adopted in the other House.
Further, a most important change is set out on the same page. Hon. Members will know that, under the Act of 1920, if a tenant were called upon improperly to pay any sum to the landlord, it was open to him to reclaim that sum, and he was entitled to go back, not merely for six months, but for 12 months, or two years, or three years. After all, that is fair.
If the tenant has been called upon improperly to pay a sum that is not legally due from him, he ought to have the power to recover it. But now it is proposed, as stated in the Lords Amendment to which I am referring, to restrict that power to six months. There may be something to be said for that, but my surprise is that it was not argued in this House. I think the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who has been following these Debates with close interest, will know that there was a fundamental difference between the Act of 1920 and the earlier Rent Restrictions Acts. Those Acts limited the tenant's right to claim to six months, but the Act of 1920 gave the tenant an unlimited period, and it was in that form that the new Bill passed this House. When, however, it went up to the other House, upon the initiative of the Ministry of Health a change was made, and we are brought back to the restriction to six months.
There is, further, on the same page, an important Amendment dealing with the Clause which enables an increase of 10 per cent. to be charged where a house is occupied by a sub-tenant. It may be remembered that that was discussed at great length, both in the Committee upstairs and in this House, but this Amendment proposes to strike out Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act. That seems a very inoffensive Amendment, but it is one of considerable importance. Under the principal Act, the permitted increase of 15 per cent., together with 25 per cent. in respect of repairs, could only be obtained if proper notice was given by the landlord to the tenant, and he had to give the notice in a certain form. Now it is proposed to strike out the provision relating to notice, so that, presumably, when the tenant who has a sub-tenant wishes to recover the 10 per cent. from the sub-tenant, he need not give any notice at all, and the increase which at present, under the principal Act, can only be secured after the lapse of a month, will be payable immediately. At any rate, it is an Amendment which was not made here, but in another place, and which is simply put before us without any explanation.
Having regard to the vital changes which are now made in a Bill affecting the interests of tens of thousands of the people of this country, I think the House is entitled to ask what is the reason for
these substantial changes. If they had been effected by the critics of the Measure in the other House, one would be able to understand it, but for the most part they were made immediately by the Government, and I think it would have been in accordance with the wishes of hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, if, seeing that we have what is in many respects a new Bill brought before us, which we have to discuss within the next few hours—because the' principal Act, I understand, lapses to-morrow, and there would be the most serious consequences if there were an interregnum—I think that some fuller explanation, or, at least, some explanation, might be given to us. As far as Clause 3, in particular, is concerned, we shall have certain Amendments to propose later, but upon the general issue I submit that an explanation should have been given to us, and, perhaps, the right) hon. Gentleman would consent to give us an explanation now.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr.Neville Chamberlain): I am a little surprised at the tone which has been adopted by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). He seems to have been wounded in a tender place in the course of the Debate on Report and Third Reading, and, because I quoted some words from a nursery rhyme, he retaliates by comparing me to a Roman Emperor—

Mr. PRINGLE: It was the Lords who did that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What was the substance of the hon. Member's complaint? His complaint is that I have considered the objections that were made by him and some of his Friends, and have endeavoured to meet them, and that they have been accepted in another place.

Mr. PRINGLE: You said you would not on the Third Reading.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not. I do not want to engage in a passage of contradiction with the hon. Member, but will rest myself upon the OFFICIAL REPORT. I say that I did not refuse to consider the Amendments. I have considered the objections which were made, and have endeavoured to make the Bill plain even to the very meanest, capacity. My reward is that the hon. Member
comes along, and complains that these Amendments were not made in this House. May I point out that neither the hon. Member nor his Friends had any Amendments upon the Paper to the effect of the Amendments which are now to be discussed in this House? Had he the foresight to put his Amendments down in that form, it is very likely that I should have been able to accept them. As he did not do so, I have tried to put his views into the form of Amendments which it would be possible to insert in the Bill, and it seems a little ungrateful on his part that he should now complain because I have done so. My only reason for not making a general statement on this Motion is that, of course, as the various Amendments come up, I shall have to explain the reason for and the meaning of each Amendment in turn, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House by making statements twice over. It seems to me that it will be quite sufficient to make my statement on each Amendment. With that explanation, I hope we may now proceed to take the Amendments in turn.

Sir JOHN SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has given a very good-humoured answer, and certainly there is no reason to be otherwise than grateful to the Government, because they have seen fit to make some changes in this Bill in another place, rather than not make those changes at all. But that really is not the point of the criticism, and the criticism is quite serious, and will, I think, be considered to have some force on the other side of the House. I see the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in his place, and also the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). This is the situation: Rather less than a fortnight ago this Bill left this House after prolonged discussion in a Standing Committee, after two days' Debate on Report, and after a Third Reading; and, in the course of those discussions, a number of criticisms were made, most of which were, in fact, not only rejected by the right hon. Gentleman, but brushed aside as wholly unnecessary, as keeping up Debate when further Debate was not really necessary, and as being confusing to the plain good sense of the ordinary man. That was less than a fortnight ago. We are now presented—and everyone knows how
difficult this is to deal with—we are now presented in the Vote Office with a Paper nine pages long of Lords Amendments to the Kent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill, Amendments which, if they were put from the Chair one at a time, would involve putting the Question a great many times, some of them Amendments covering pages of print; and, when one examines them, one discovers that in several respects they deal in fact with the exact criticisms which were so contemptuously rejected by the Government only a fortnight ago.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I suppose that in the Lords they are able to put their arguments in a better shape. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet!"]

Mr. PRINGLE: Not till you are there!

Sir J. SIMON: As long as we have the advantage of the right hon. Baronet's presence in this House, we shall have his help here, where his power of putting arguments will be most appreciated. As a matter of fact, it was not the result of argument in the other House at all, but was due to the fact that, when this Bill reached the other House, the right hon. Gentleman's own representative produced these things wholesale out of a portmanteau, and proceeded within a minimum of time to put them into the Bill. I venture to think, therefore, that the criticism is not an unfair one. It is not that anyone is ungrateful, it is not that anyone claims a monopoly of wisdom in this matter, but it is perfectly clear to anyone who was present during the Debates on Report and Third Reading that, all the time that the right hon. Gentleman was professing to the House that he was satisfied with the shape of his Bill, and was rejecting all criticisms as though they were waste of time and created complications, he or his advisers were, in fact, taking note of these matters, intending to put the thing in a plainer form in another place.
That is particularly clear when one looks at the record of what happened during the Report stage. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, on one of these very matters which he now corrects, not only resisted the criticism, not only dealt with it as though it was raising complications about a matter that was obvious, but said he looked forward with
equanimity to the decision of the House, promptly moved the Closure, and got his majority. My only suggestion is, that when we are presented by the Government, as a result of less than a fortnight's reflection, with nine pages of print, which are extremely difficult to digest at short notice, it is a legitimate subject for discussion and consideration whether it would not have been better to have realised some of these difficulties a little sooner and provided against them.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I share with hon. Gentlemen opposite their admiration of the action of the Second Chamber in relation to this Bill, and I think they are entitled to make their point this afternoon that many of the suggestions which they made have now been adopted. I am afraid, if I may say so, that the trouble of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has been that he has quoted poetry, which is always a dangerous thing to do. The particular line he quoted about "Plain Jane," makes one think of another—
Oh, Jane, my pretty Jane,
Why do you look so shy?
One naturally feels shy when one presents a Bill with this large number of Amendments. I think, however, that it is fair to the House to point out that, so far as several of these Amendments are concerned, most of them, with hardly an. exception, are a recapitulation of the 1920 Act, and I think that in that respect the Bill has been greatly improved. Whether my right hon. Friend has made the Bill plain to the meanest intelligence I do not know. We shall hear what the County Court judges and High Court judges say about that matter at a later date. I do not quite think they may share my right hon. Friend's views on that point.
It is also, further, to be said that, with, I think, one exception, all the alterations that have been made have been made to the advantage of the tenant. What my hon. Friend opposite said, as to notice being no longer necessary when the rent was increased on account of the tenancy being sub-let, was hardly accurate. What, in fact, I think that provision means, is simply that notice has not to be given in accordance with the Schedule to the old Act; but it certainly will still be necessary for the landlord to give the
requisite notice under the particular provision. No doubt we may have an opportunity of discussing this matter in detail when that Amendment is reached, but, apart from the matter of dispute between the hon. Member opposite and the Minister of Health, I think it may be said that most of these Amendments are improvements, and that, unless many of them were made, very serious legal consequences would ensue.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not follow the hon. Member for West Woolwich when he states that the Amendments which have come down from another place are all in favour of the tenants. I agree at once that the Bill has been improved greatly, but only in parts. I think the Minister has done very wisely indeed when he consolidated one of the most difficult Clauses of the Bill by bringing some of the provisions of the 1920 Act into this Measure. We asked him to do that and he has done so, though he stated definitely at the time that he found it very difficult to promise anything of the kind. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is, I repeat, wrong when he says the Amendments are in favour of the tenant. In the first Clause it is definitely against the tenant. I will quote the speech' of the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment in another place—
Supposing a lessor granted a lease on 1st January, 1923, for five years until 1st January, 1928, at a rent of £70 and until 1st January, 1925, when he expected the principal Act to expire, at a rent of £90. Under Clause 1 of the Bill as it now stands the effect would be that the rent of £90 would be cut down to £70 until 24th June, 1925. There seems to be a hardship in such a case.
The hardship in the mind of the Noble Lord is a hardship to the landlord and not to the tenant. There is another point. We inserted in this House, in Clause 7, the following words:
Where the purchase of any furniture or other article is required as a condition of the renewal or continuance of the tenancy or sub-tenancy of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies the price demanded shall be stated in writing.
We had a long Debate on the last five words. In the other place they have decided to insert the following words:
The price demanded shall, at the request of the person on whom the demand is made, be stated in writing.
That is quite another thing, and when we come to that Amendment we shall have something to say about it. In those two instances, at any rate, the hon. Member is entirely wrong when he states that the Amendments which have come down from another place are all in favour of the tenant.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Our complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman offered a stubborn and unreasoning resistance all through Committee and Report to Amendments which we proposed and which he has now accepted, and he now taunts us with having put the Amendments down in such a form that he could not understand them, or, at least, accept them. Amendments that I put down in Committee he stubbornly resisted, and now they are embodied in the Bill in toto without any modification whatever. I want to know whether he will learn a lesson from the experience he has had in Committee and whether, if reasonable Amendments are put down and arguments advanced, notwithstanding those arguments and the clearness of the logic that is placed before him, he will still think it his duty to resist anything that comes from these benches. We pointed out to him that he would be forced to accept this later on from other sources. He has re-cast Clause 3. We did that for him in Committee and we pointed out that if he would accept it he would simplify the whole consideration of the Bill thereafter. A large amount of difficulty has arisen because so much of this Bill is legislation by reference, and we pointed out that the Bill referred to large sections of the community who are the poorest of the community, and we wanted to simplify it, not only for our own consideration, but for the public at large when the Bill was placed in their hands. I think we have just reason to complain that time and again, both in Committee and on Report, we have presented Amendments and Clauses and the right hon. Gentleman has tried to defeat them, sometimes by getting them ruled out of order, and sometimes by setting up stubborn opposition, of which we justly complain

Mr. PRINGLE: I think it unworthy that the right hon. Gentleman has not availed himself of the opportunity which the Motion is understood to give to a Minister when considerable Amend-
ments come from the Lords. It has always been the practice, when substantial Amendments are made to a Bill, for the Minister in charge to explain the general effect of such Amendments and give an opportunity for what is the equivalent of a Second Reading Debate on the general effects of the Amendments. I think that is all the more important in the case of a Bill of this kind, which is so intricate, and which affects so many people all over the country. It deals with something like 9,000,000 houses, and within 48 hours the law of the land is to be altered as affecting all these people. Yet the right hon. Gentleman does not think it worth while to make a general statement on the Amendments so that all the people should know where they are. It is neither fair to the House nor to the people outside who are affected by this legislation. Furthermore, it is all the more important that this should be done in the case of a Bill like this, which is really being rushed through Parliament at a breakneck pace. The most important Clause of the Bill, Clause 3, was considered on Report after midnight, when the House was working under the greatest difficulties and there was no opportunity whatever for the Debate to be reported in the daily Press. [Laughter.] There is nothing amusing about it. The noble Lord does not live in a house that is affected by this Bill. There are large numbers of people all over the country who do not know to-day how they will be at 12 o'clock to-morrow night. If the Noble Lord represented a constituency which was largely affected by this he would not show this ill-timed hilarity. The right hon. Gentleman may find his amusement is not so justified as he thinks at the moment. May I remind him that his predecessor, Dr. Addison, was a great man when he was passing his Housing Bill and his Rent Restriction Bill? He was the hero of the piece while the Bills were going through. I was merely commending that example to the right hon. Gentleman that he should, after all, show more attention and pay more deference to the House of Commons.
I can well understand his reticence. He does not want to give away the extent to which he was wrong when defending the Bill on Report and Third Reading. On some of the most essential provisions
the contentions of the Opposition have been justified and the right hon. Gentleman has had to surrender in another place, but he is afraid to admit it. In this matter of Clause 3, paragraph (iv), which laid down that alternative accommodation was not necessary, was dealt with on Report at 2 o'clock in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted us that we did not put down Amendments at that time to that paragraph as it stood, but the reason was that the paragraph was neither intelligible nor grammatical, and obviously it was not the duty of the Opposition to teach lucidity and grammar to the right hon. Gentleman. But the case was sufficiently put to him and he put down an Amendment, which he subsequently withdrew when it was pointed out that it was totally inadequate, and he gave me a qualified pledge that he would consider it in another place:
I should like to think it over, and, if necessary, I will have an Amendment inserted in another place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1923; col. 1133, vol. 166.]
That was the position on the Report stage. Then the right hon. Gentleman turned completely round before the Friday when the Third Reading was taken. No Amendment was necessary on the Report stage. It was then that he quoted the nursery rhyme. I reminded him then that it would have to be made right in the House of Lords and he has had to do it. The Clause as it left this House was unintelligible. No one could interpret it. There was an absolute certainty that litigation would have arisen over it. You would have had different interpretations in different Courts all over the country for months. The matter would have taken its slow progress through all the minor Courts up to the House of Lords, and thousands of pounds which have, been spent before the tenants knew exactly where they were. Now at least they know where they are, and we know what provisions the Government seeks to place upon the tenants, and it is because we know now that we think we have a right to let the people outside know, first of all, that under this Bill as it stands any landlord who was a landlord before June, 1922, can turn the tenant out unconditionally.

Sir K. WOOD: He has to apply to the Court.

Mr. PRINGLE: All he has to do is to show the Court that he requires the house

Sir K. WOOD: The Court has to be satisfied.

Mr. PRINGLE: That the landlord reasonably requires the house. That is all. The Court is not entitled to go into the question of the relative hardship on the tenant and the landlord respectively.

Sir K. WOOD: The words are, "and in any such case the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order."

Mr. PRINGLE: A distinction is drawn between pre-1922 landlords and post-1922 landlords. The pre-1922 landlord has only to convince the Court that he reasonably requires the house. I am entitled to say that is practically an unconditional right to possession, unconditional in the sense that the question of hardship as between tenant and landlord has not to be gone into, and further, that no alternative accommodation has to be provided. So I am entitled to say that under these conditions, so far as every house is concerned on which the landlord became the landlord before June, 1922, the landlord can turn the tenant out after this Act is passed without providing alternative accommodation and without question as to the relative hardship on the two persons. That, I think, is a thing that is not generally known in the country to-day, and it is important that it should be known. If it were known, I think there would be a great deal more interest taken in this Bill.
The second point is that, so far as any landlord is concerned who became the owner after June, 1922, the only question that arises is the comparative hardship as between himself and the tenant. If he satisfies the Court that the hardship to him would be greater than the hardship to the tenant he has the right to benefit. That is putting the landlord who became landlord after June, 1922, in the same position as the favoured landlord under the former Act. Under the former Act the landlord who became landlord before 1917 had not to provide alternative accommodation, but he had to satisfy the Court on the matter of hardship. If he became landlord after 1917 he had to provide alternative accommodation. Now the situation is completely revolutionised.
The landlord who became owner before-June, 1922, has practically the unconditional right of possession. There is not a single tenant now where the landlord became owner before that time who has any right to remain in his house for any length of time; he may be turned out at any moment, subject to the discretion of the Court, on the question as to whether the owner reasonably requires possession. That is a great change which will affect thousands of people, who at this moment have no idea that they are so affected. What is the effect of the further provision? You have placed an enormous power in the hands of the landlord. The landlord can go to a tenant and say. "I have just received an offer for this house; someone is willing to buy it. If he buys it, he will not need to provide you with alternative accommodation, but only to prove to the Court that there will be a greater hardship on him than on you if he does not get possession. What are you going to do about it?"

Sir F. BANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is not the Question before the House the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered"? Is the hon. Member in order? He is entitled to give reasons why the Lords Amendments should not be considered, but is he in order in dealing with other Amendments. Ought not those Amendments to be dealt with when they come before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: There has generally been allowed some opportunity for a review of the Amendments as a whole, but I think the hon. Member was getting. a little beyond that.

Mr. PRINGLE: This was the Amendment I intended to deal with, because it seems to me to be the whole heart of the Bill. It has been made clear for the first time since the Committee stage that the effect of Paragraph (iv) is what the Government did not make clear in the Bill. I was taking the opportunity on the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," to argue as to whether it should be passed in that form. I am willing to deal with the points on the separate Amendments. I think I have made my point clear on this Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Lords Amendment alters the substance of the Bill?

Mr. PRINGLE: I do. My contention is that the words as they left this House did not mean what is now clearly set forth. I agree that it was the intention of the Government that they should do so, but they could only be made to mean that by inserting a parenthesis in the Clause, which was not there, and giving the word "where" in Paragraph (4) an interpretation which it had not in the first place.

Mr. SPEAKER: We shall have to deal with that when we come to it. It is rather a nice point. We had better not deal with it twice over.

Mr. PRINGLE: I hope we shall be able to establish that, although the Government declare that their intention in the Clause as it stood was the same as it is now, a change has been made. It was because many hon. Members, both here and in another place, held that the words as they stood did not really mean anything, and that it would be necessary for the Courts to say what they did mean, that this change has been necessary.

Mr. HARNEY: I desire to offer my protest against the action of the Minister of Health. We now find that in another place they have made Amendments that make the Bill intelligible precisely on the points which many of us pointed out were obscure. Nobody was treated with greater scorn than myself by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think he condescended to answer a single one of the points I raised. His first observation was that I had split an infinitive. His next answer was to quote a nursery rhyme, and his last point was that I was a past master in the art of draftsmanship. It was in relation to each one of these points which drew forth these replies that in another place he has found it necessary to translate the language of the Bill into a form which I now admit to be intelligible. While the right hon. Gentleman declined in this House to make the necessary amendments in phraseology, he has taken advantage of the other House to do that and, by way of doing it and improving the language, to make the principles of the Bill infinitely worse.
When we come to deal specifically with some of the Amendments which now make this Bill intelligible, we shall be justified in arguing that had they been put forward in this House, even hon. Members upon the other side would have failed to carry them. Let me take one illustration. If there was one strong principle running through the Bill, and through the whole of the series of Acts dealing with this question, it was that where a landlord required a house for himself or a member of his family he would have to see that the tenant had somewhere else to go. Under the Bill as it was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, and as it was passed by this House, it was quite clear—I mean, assuming the language was correct, because language was used which was perfectly contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman intended—at any rate it was the intention of the Bill as it left this House that in the case of persons who became landlords prior to June, 1922, if they wished to get their tenant out they were in this privileged position that they would only have to show that it was a greater hardship upon them than upon the tenant if they did not get possession. In regard to landlords who became owners after that date, if they wished to get a tenant out they could only do so by finding him another place into which he could go.
Under guise of making the obscure intelligible, what do we find now? We find that in the case of landlords before June, 1922, if they wish to get their tenants out they have only to show that they reasonably require the house, and if they became landlords after June, 1922, they can get the tenant out by showing that it is harder upon them than upon the tenant if they do not get possession. In neither case have they to show the one thing that was essential in all this legislation: That alternative accommodation should be found. We were never told that when we were discussing the Bill. We are told it now that we have no time to discuss it. The curious thing is that while the Bill says that, as a general proposition, the landlord who wants to get his tenant out in order to take the place himself must show alternate accommodation, that condition is swallowed up by qualifications, and it becomes an absolute contradiction in terms to say that alternative accommodation is required, having regard to the later Sub-sections.
The right hon. Gentleman's political friends in the other place desired to make this more and more a landlords' Bill. This extra landlord character has been given to it at a time when it is impossible for us to alter the Bill, because it must become law to-morrow. However overwhelmingly strong may be the arguments we put forward against such a Clause, and however much we convert hon. Members opposite, they would be bound to support the Lords Amendment, because there is no time to make the alteration. Had this been done, as it should have been done, when the Bill was before this House, we could have given effect to our criticisms. For these reasons, I add my protest against the extraordinary action of the right hon. Gentleman, against the superciliousness and self-complacency, and the seeking at the eleventh hour to do something when there is no chance of our correcting it.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I trust my hon. Friend is wrong in his statement that it is too late to deal with this matter. Does the Minister of Health intend to ask the House to accept these Amendments holus bolus, and not to discriminate and to disagree with some of them, simply because it is the 30th July? It would not be fair for the Minister to come down and say, "It is so late that you must take all these Amendments, otherwise the Bill will not be operative in time." He must be well aware that if we disagree with the Lords in any Amendment, we are entitled to do so, and to make representations in the usual way to the other House with a view to the other place accepting our disagreement. We should be told at the outset whether we are expected to swallow all these Amendments, or whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with some of the Amendments.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I am concerned I propose to ask the House to accept all the Amendments, but not holus bolus. If the hon. Member can get a sufficient number of hon. Members to agree with him in disagreeing with any particular Amendment to which he takes exception, it is open to him to do so.

Mr. HARDIE: If this House refuses to accept any of these Amendments, will it mean that the Bill cannot come into law to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: If this House di agree with an Amendment made by the other House, we give reasons why this House disagrees with the Lords Amendment. Then it remains for the Lords I say whether or not they insist upon the Amendment.

5.0 P.M,

Mr. MOSLEY: Those of us who were on the Standing Committee are we aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone's (Mr. Pringle) interpretation of the new feature of the Lords Amendment is perfectly correct. Now for the first time it is made clear in this Bill that in all practical cases no alternative accommodation need be provided if the. landlord requires the house either for himself or for any of his children. It quite true that in Committee and on the Report stage it was the reiterated intention of the Government to secure this condition, but the curious form in which their intention was expressed made the matter open to considerable doubt, an it seemed to be the duty of those of us who thought that this Measure pressed very harshly on the tenant by not pressing for a clearer definition of the right hon. Gentleman's intention, to make perfectly clear that the tenant would be in the bad condition in which it was his intention to place him.
It is a terrible thing to have to rely for fair play for the tenants upon the muddles made by the right hon. Gentleman, but that was the last hope for the tenant, that the legislation would be so badly drafted and so open to man different interpretations that the tenant would have a good chance of going to the Court of Appeal and upsetting the right hon. Gentleman's intention. It was therefore with that object in view that we did not bring forward those Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman said we should bring forward in order to clarify his legislation. That is another instance of the right hon. Gentleman making mistake in draftsmanship which he did not perceive.
There was another case when he said that any alternative accommodation to be provided would be subject to the control of the principal Act. He accepted an Amendment to that effect and then went to the draftsman and found that there was no such accommodation and could not be such houses
available for alternative accommodation. Then he had hurriedly to reverse his decision on the Report stage in the House. That is an extraordinary instance of the right hon. Gentleman flouting the views put forward from this side of the House, then subsequently consulting his Parliamentary draftsman and finding that he agreed with the views which we had expressed. But we shall have an opportunity of proving in detail at a later stage that as the Bill now stands there is no necessity to provide alternative accommodation in the case of tenants who are dispossessed.
I would only at this more general stage of the proceedings call attention to one fact which so far has not been mentioned. In these nine pages, in which the right hon. Gentleman attempts to sweep up the mess of his legislation, he is printing for the first time in extenso a great many of the provisions of the principal Act which he previously refused to do. For instance, pages 2; 3, 4, 5 and 6 are devoted to reproducing in full the provisions of the principal Act. Over and over again in the Committee stage we asked the right hon. Gentleman, in order to save the Committee and the House trouble of these innumerable references to the previous Act, to embody in the Bill the provisions of the principal Act in extenso. The right hon. Gentleman used to make the extraordinary reply that if he did this it would cause delay in getting the Measure through the House, because endless discussion would ensue. So the right hon. Gentleman confused the Committee and confused the House by this referential legislation, and on occasions confused himself, and he continued to do this right up to the House of Lords stage. Then he suddenly acceded to the request which had been made. In order to clarify the position to the public, if not to the House, he printed these provisions in extenso.
I protest against the methods by which the House has been confused and the method by which we have been compelled, when discussing this legislation, to hold at the same time the other Act in our hands in order to understand what this Bill means. These stages have been made so confused throughout, merely because the right hon. Gentleman thought that confusion and muddle would expedite
this legislation. I would ask the House to insist in future, when legislation of this sort is introduced, that we shall not have referential provisions of this character, but that we shall have the original provisions printed, in the first place, in order that reasoned and enlightened criticism may have an opportunity of making itself felt with a full appreciation of the subject under discussion.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 2, insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Determination of certain leases and tenancies.)

Where before the passing of this Act, the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies has granted to the tenant a valid lease of the dwelling-house for a term ending at some date after the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, or has entered into a valid agreement with the tenant for a tenancy for such a term, and the rent thereby reserved is reserved at a rate which after but not before such last-mentioned date exceeds the standard rent and the increases permitted under the principal Act or this Act, the landlord may by three months' notice in writing expiring not earlier than the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and not later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, determine the said lease or tenancy, provided that if within one month of the receipt of such notice the lessee or tenant shall give to the landlord notice in writing that he elects to abide by the said lease or agreement and the terms thereof, then the said lease or agreement shall remain in full force and effect in every respect including the amount of the rent thereby expressed to be reserved unaffected by the principal Act or this Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is not one which I think affects a large number of cases. The object has been explained to some extent by the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in reply to the speech of the Noble Lord in another place. It contemplates the case in which a landlord has entered into a contract with a tenant under a lease which pro-
vides that the rent permitted by the Act of 1920 shall be paid until June, 1923, and thereafter, for the rest of the term, that an increased rent shall be paid. In cases of that kind, where such an agreement is made in perfect good faith, the object of the tenant, we must assume, was to get security of tenure for a longer period, while the object of the landlord was to get an increased rent after the time after which both he and the tenant expected that control would cease. By the prolongation of control we take away from the landlord what he expected to get out of the bargain, while retaining for the tenant what he expected to get on his side. To mitigate the hardship in such cases this Clause is proposed. It provides that the landlord shall have power in such cases, by giving three months' notice within certain dates, to determine the lease of the tenant, while the tenant can make a counter-claim, stating that he is willing to abide by the terms of the lease which he has entered into, and which he thought fair and equitable to himself, and he is then entitled, if he prefers to abide by the terms of that lease, to continue such lease in its original form notwithstanding the fact that control has been continued beyond the date of June, 1923. In these circumstances, I recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MOSLEY: I ask the House not to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, because it appears to me to discriminate unfairly against a man who, believing that the original Act will come to a conclusion at the end of a specified period, has entered into an agreement to deal with a contingency which in fact has not arisen. As I understand it, it actually puts a man who has entered into such an agreement at a disadvantage compared with the man who has not. If this is not so I would like an explanation of the point. If a man did not enter into such an agreement, then his rent would be subject to control by this Bill. If, on the other hand, he believed that the original Act was coming to a conclusion, and that no further legislation would be introduced, and he entered into an agreement under which, on the conclusion of the original Act, he agreed to pay an enhanced rent, then he does not derive the benefit of the
which we are now considering and has to pay the increased rent that he would have had to pay if we had introduced no other legislation. That discriminates between the man who has entered into an agreement of this kind and the man who has not, and deprives the man who has entered into an agreement of the protection of this legislation which he would have got if he had gambled upon its being introduced. Therefore it seems to me that the Clause is discriminating against the man who, perhaps through fear of being turned out of his house at the end of the principal Act, has been blackmailed into entering into an agreement of this sort. Therefore he would not derive any benefit from the legislation which we are now discussing.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I desire to say a word or two on this new Clause. It was apparently an afterthought, and I am not sure whether it was initiated by the Government or not. I heard the discussion on it in another place, and I was rather suspicious that the Noble Lord who supported this Amendment was not exactly doing so with the desire to help the tenants. It is always assumed, in dealing with the question of leases and agreements in connection with house property, that you are dealing with people living in residences for which they pay a very high rent, but I know pf persons who have been practically compelled to enter into such agreements, who are living in very low-rented cottages. They were compelled to enter into those agreements because of the fear referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). If this Clause is passed, the Minister of Health will find out that the agreements which it covers will include agreements for a very large number of small cottages. For this reason, I am Very aprehensive of the Clause.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) does not quite appreciate certain of the other Clauses of the Bill which will affect this Clause. Under its provisions, if a landlord and tenant have entered into an agreement or lease which continues beyond the date mentioned, my hon. Friend thinks that the tenant will be put in an unfavourable position. He will be put in a favourable position, because the operation of the other Clauses would mean this that where the tenant has
entered into a covenant to pay an increased rent the other provisions of this Bill will apply, and the increased rent would no longer have to be paid. Therefore, if one condition contemplates control at the end of the month, and there is a second condition to pay £25 a year over the old rent, the other part of the Bill applies and the tenant would no longer have to pay that £25. Therefore the landlord who entered into an agreement is left in this unfortunate position, that, though he has granted a lease for a longer term to the tenant, he is not getting in return for it what he has contracted for. That was increased rent. Therefore the position of the tenant is favourable because under the operation of another Clause he no longer has to pay his increased rent. Therefore the landlord who enters into a lease or agreement of that kind ought to be put in a position to terminate it, and this Clause allows him to terminate that lease or agreement. If he does so then the tenant goes along, under the operation of this Bill, as if no lease or agreement had been entered into at all. But if he still desires the lease or agreemnt which has been entered into to continue he can secure that by paying the rent agreed on.

Mr. DAVIES: What does the hon. Gentleman say to a case in which a man has been compelled to sign an agreement under duress?

Sir K. WOOD: Obviously if a man has been compelled to sign an agreement under duress his remedy is to get that agreement set aside under the ordinary law of the land on the ground that he has been forced to enter into it under duress. If it is set aside, the original law will be applicable. But in this particular respect the tenant is safe because he will not have to pay any increased rent, while the landlord has entered into a lease which obviously requires determination, as is provided by this Clause. I think, however, that it would have been wiser if there had been a provision that, when the landlord gives his notice to the tenant to terminate the lease, the tenant should be informed that he has the right, if he wishes, to insist that the lease or agreement should remain in force. That, perhaps, would have been an additional safeguard to the tenant. Probably a very large number of tenants who will receive
a notice terminating the lease or agreement may not know that they, in their turn, can, if they desire, elect that the lease or agreement shall remain in full force. Apart from that, I think, if hon. Members will consider the whole of the effect of this Bill, this Clause cannot be regarded as an unreasonable one.

Mr. HARNEY: I have three very plain criticisms to offer upon this new Clause. The first is this: there was no suggestion, direct or indirect, of any Clause of the kind in the Bill when it was brought before this House, or as it left this House. This is no subsidiary point. It really is a very vital point, because it provides that those who have made provision, before this recent legislation, for the payment of certain rents shall be put in a different position from what they would be in if they had not made that provision. Let me try to put the position clearly to the House. I understand from the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given that the purpose of the Clause is this. Supposing, a couple of years ago, a landlord and a tenant entered into an agreement or a lease for a period of two or three years, or more. The landlord says to the tenant, "You know this house comes within the purview of the Rent Restrictions Act and I am therefore not at liberty to charge you more than the standard rent, with the authorised increase?" "Yes," says the tenant, "I quite understand that." The landlord then says, "You know that this legislation is coming to an end in 1923?" "I believe so," says the tenant. "Very good. If it comes to an end," says the landlord, "then, of course, you know I shall be able to charge you what rent I like?" "Oh, yes, I quite see that," replies the tenant. "Let us now there fore anticipate that legislation," says the landlord." I will charge you the lawful rent authorised by the Rent Restrictions Act up to June, 1923, and I will arrange now to charge you, after June, 1923, what I should be able to charge you if the legislation came to an end." The tenant says, "All right, I am quite agreeable; because you are only asking me to pay what I know I shall have to pay if the legislation comes to an end."
The legislation does not come to an end. We have, for the purpose of catching votes in the country, introduced here a Bill which is called a prolongation of
the control, and which says to all tenants—and to tenants who thought that the control was coming to an end in June of this year—"Here is a boon for you. It is really not coming to an end." What is the position then? Tenant A, paying exactly the same rent as tenant B, did not have an agreement; he paid his yearly rent. He gets such privileges as the Bill is intended to prolong. Tenant B, perhaps in the next door house, the same building, the same size, the same rent, the same everything, has agreed to pay the same rent as A up to the period that he thought the standard rent would continue, but he has foolishly said, "I agree to pay a higher rent afterwards, because I am satisfied the Act will come to an end."

Sir K. WOOD: Tenant B will get the advantage.

Mr. HARNEY: Pardon me, I cannot see that. I will try to develop my argument, and the hon. Member will set me right if I am wrong. As I understand this rather difficult Clause—I have only had a few minutes to read it—it says this, Show me the tenant who has no lease and whose rent is £100 a year. When this Bill is passed, he has the privilege of going to the Court and getting the rent reduced to the lawful dimensions under the Act. His next door neighbour with exactly the same sized house, who is paying exactly the same rent, differing only in this respect, that he has said a couple of years ago, "I will pay £100 a year, up to the period when the landlord becomes a free agent; then, knowing he can charge me what he pleases, I will agree now to pay him, when the time arrives that he is a free man, what, as a free man, he could charge me." But the time has not arrived when he is a free man, because this Bill is for the purpose of putting it off. You, therefore, say that tenant A, who trusts to the Legislature, is to get the benefit of it; but that tenant B is not to get the benefit of it, for no earthly reason except that he made a promise of a higher rent, not believing that new legislation would come in when the legislation already passed came to an end. Perhaps some other hon. Member will point out the fallacy of my reasoning, but I confess I do not see it myself.
The third criticism I pass on this Clause is that you are about to complete a Bill, and turn it into an Act of Parliament, which will say this, "We shall prevent landlords from charging an economic rent for a period of two years more." That is the substance of the Bill. Of course, it does not carry it out; but that is what it says. Every person who is a tenant is entitled to get the full benefit of that legislation. That legislation makes a rent that arises, not between word of mouth, but out of a bit of paper, from a lease, an unlawfully high rent. The legislation, when passed to-morrow, will say, in the cases which are dealt with by this Clause, "You (the landlord) are getting a rent that is unlawfully high, having regard to the terms of this Act. because you have a bit of paper entitling you to call upon the tenant to pay you a larger sum than Parliament says he ought to pay. We authorise you (the landlord) to write a notice to the tenant, and say to him, Mr. Tenant, if you do not continue to pay me the unlawfully high rent, out you go; but if, within a month, you reply, and agree to pay the unlawfully high rent, then you can stop in.'". So you enable a landlord to bring undue and unjust pressure on a tenant, to force the tenant, in fact, to pay a rent which, apart from this Clause, the law says he ought not to pay. For these reasons, I submit that this is a Clause not only contrary to the whole spirit of this legislation, but right in the teeth of the very provision that has been made for the protection of the tenants of the same class in every respect. You penalise the man who has anticipated, two or three years ago, that this legislation would come to an end, as against the man who either did not provide for that, or did not anticipate it by entering into an agreement. I do not see upon what grounds this new Clause can be justified.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: When lawyers disagree we do not know where we are. There are lawyers on the opposite side of the House who say that the lawyers on this side are wrong. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is a lawyer, and he tells us that the position of some of the tenants is going to be a great deal worse under the Bill as it now appears than it was when it left this House and went to another
place. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), however, says the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. As a layman, I want to know exactly what the position is. I think we are entitled to ask the Government what the actual situation will be, so far as the tenants affected by this particular Clause are concerned. My only object in rising is to ask the representative of the Government to try to clear up this little matter, and let us know just where the tenants really are.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): It would be only courteous to the hon. Member who has just spoken if I responded to his appeal for an explanation. I confess I do not think that any hon. Member—if I may say so without offence—can be misled by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), who has again misunderstood the effect of the Bill.

Mr. HARNEY: Again! When before?

Lord E. PERCY: Let me tell the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) that what is proposed does not in any way affect the statutory tenancy of the tenant to whom the Clause applies.

Mr. HARNEY: No one said it did.

Lord E. PERCY: Therefore, whatever option he exercises when he gets his notice from his landlord, he will remain in the house, and the landlord cannot turn him out. This only prevents the tenant from relying both on the statutory tenancy and on the lease given him by the landlord, and at the same time saying, "While I rely, not only on my statutory tenancy but on my lease, yet I will not carry out the terms of my lease to pay you a higher rent, because that would be against the law." It puts him, on the contrary, in precisely the same position as the tenant who has made no agreement at all. He pays the statutory permitted rent, and has the statutory security of a tenant as long as the Act lasts, until 1925, but no longer.

Mr. HARNEY: May I ask the Noble Lord what is the answer to this position? I only ask for the purpose of clearing the matter up. Supposing, two years ago, a tenant was paying a rent permissible under the Act of £80. The land-
lord said, "If you enter into a lease to pay me £80 until June, 1923, and then to pay me £100 after June, 1923, that will put the position right. You will be paying me, up to June, 1923; the rent that is permissible under this Act; the house will be a free house then, and after that you will pay me £100, because, if it were a free house, that is what I should be able to get." Under these circumstances, you have your tenant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I was trying to put the position. The question I want to ask is, in that case, am I right in saying that the tenant would still have to pay £100, and would be put out if he said he insisted on paying only £80?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to that is, No; he would either pay the £100, or give up his lease, and pay the £80; but in either case he would be protected by the Act until 1925.

Mr. MOSLEY: What is the object of the Clause?

Mr. PRINGLE: I should like to know precisely what is the advantage which is going to accrue to anybody from the operation of this Clause 1 Obviously, if the lease only extends up to 1925, the tenant is not going to pay the extra rent and apparently he will be entitled to refuse to pay the extra rent, and it will not make any difference whether the landlord determines the lease or not. By determining the tenancy the landlord gains no right whatever. It only means a gamble between landlord and tenant as to what is to happen in June, 1925. I am surprised that legislation of this kind which, on the statement of the Noble Lord, is so ineffective should be accepted by Parliament. But when I hear such an innocent construction placed upon it, I wonder whether it is the right one or not. There are certain very doubtful words in this Clause about the tenancy being determined. It seems to determine the lease and tenancy together. [HON. MEMBEBS: "No!"] That is what the. Clause says, and when, in an Act which is professedly continuing statutory tenancies, you get a Clause which says that a tenancy is to be determined, you are naturally in some doubt as to its precise effect. According to the Noble Lord, the statutory tenancy revives immediately on the determination of the agreed tenancy.
That, however, is a question for future interpretation. I know that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) takes the same view and it may be right. I am not prepared to say it is wrong, but in the form in which this is expressed, another interpretation is conceivable, and if that was the object which those who drafted the Clause had in view, they might have put it in such a way as to leave no doubt what their object was.
By using these words doubt is raised and there may be litigation, and, as the Kerr v. Bryde case has taught us, nobody can tell what the result of litigation may be. I understand in the case of a large number of flats in London agreements were made early this year, before the intentions of the Government became clear. Everybody knows that the intentions of the Government did not become clear until after the Mitcham election. In the months immediately preceding that, a certain number of speculators bought West End flats and approached the tenants to make agreements, and in some oases such agreements were made. These agreements provided for an enhanced rent. It is clear the object of this Clause is to enable those speculators to charge the enhanced rents—that is if the construction put on it by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) is right—and that under this Clause, if the tenant does not agree to pay the enhanced rent, then the landlord is entitled to determine the lease or tenancy. I do not think there is anybody on the Government Benches who can state with any kind of authority what is the meaning of determining the lease or tenancy. The Noble Lord says that if the lease or tenancy is determined, then the statutory tenancy revives, and the hon. Member for West Woolwich agrees with that. Still, we have no Law Officers here, and it is quite conceivable when this matter is argued elsewhere, that another construction may be put upon it, and it may be held that as there is a Clause which definitely determines a tenancy, in an Act which is intended to continue tenancies, this Clause is obviously intended to be an exception to the Act. and therefore the statutory tenancy will not revive.
I am not certain whether that argument is right or wrong, but it is one
which may be put before the Courts and which may be accepted by the Courts, and, in these circumstances, tenants who rely on the words of the Noble Lord will be where the landlord was under the Kerr v. Bryde decision. It is clear there are two possible interpretations, and obviously this is a provision which the Government did not think necessary until it was brought forward in another place by a Noble Lord whose name I forget and whose identity I cannot recognise. It was accepted in another place without discussion and the Government never went into the question of what it meant. Now, when it comes up here, we have had two explanations of it and two contradictory interpretations, and the House should hesitate before committing itself to making a law which may be subject to different constructions in the Courts afterwards.

Mr. EDE: I oppose the new Clause, mainly for the first reason given by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). It seems almost trifling with the House to ask us, in the few hours that remain before this Bill must become an Act of Parliament, to discuss and accept a principle which is vital to the whole question of decontrol. We discussed many things in Committee, but this point was never raised. It has been said by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) that prior to a certain event the intentions of the Government were not clear. I do not think that since that event their intentions in this particular matter have become any clearer. The tenants have placed before them a dilemma, and no matter which course they follow they are nearly sure to lose. If they say, "We will allow the lease to stand and go on paying the highly increased rent which we agreed to pay," they may find in 1925 that this legislation will be once again continued. Few Members of this House feel certain that this legislation is going to end in 1925, and the tenants may find that they have pledged themselves to pay the higher rent for a still further period, while other tenants are enjoying the benefits of control. On the other hand, the tenants may say, "We will not pay the increased rent." Then they gamble on the other chance, and they may find in 1925 that they are unprotected by the lease or anything at all. An
Amendment like this, introduced in these circumstances, should not be forced upon the House, and the Government should consent to its withdrawal. I understand it was not a Government Amendment in another place, and was accepted virtually without discussion, and we should not be asked to insert a Clause involving such a large principle in the short time remaining before the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: If legal Members of the House differ so fundamentally as to the meaning of this Clause, a layman is to be excused for being in some doubt. What is the effect of the Clause? The Noble Lord said that the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was quite wrong, and that it would not, as between a tenant with a lease and one without a lease, raise the rent of the one who had the lease as against that of the one who had not the lease. If it will not do that, what will it do, and why is it in the Bill at all? I think the contention of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields is quite correct and the extract quoted from the speech of the Noble Lord in another place who moved the insertion of the Clause rather confirmed the view that it was introduced in order to enable the landlord in certain circumstances to get the higher rent. As this Clause was not in the Bill when it was previously before the House, but is completely new matter, the Government would be well advised not to press it. Surely its effect is to determine the lease and, I take it, once the lease is determined, the house passes into the category of decontrolled houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then to a layman it is very difficult to understand what is the purpose of the Clause. What will it do if it will not increase the rent, and why then should the Government be anxious to retain it?

Mr. LORDEN: I cannot understand how the legal Members of the House have got into such a fog about this matter. The Clause seems to me to meet a difficulty which has arisen, and the difficulty is that certain people entered into arrangements with their landlords to extend their agreements beyond the date on which it was thought this legislation would come to an end. This Clause enables the lease to be determined
entirely and enables the tenant to go on in the tenancy with the advantages of the Rent Restriction Act up to 1925. The tenant and the landlord may elect whether they will continue their arrangement or not. Under this Clause that is provided for definitely and a definite date is given for the determination of the arrangement. The landlord may give three months' notice, and if the tenant likes to continue the arrangement, and if he gives notice within one month, then the arrangement is continued. In that case it is a happy arrangement, and no one interferes. If, on the other hand, the tenant thinks he is going to reap an advantage by discontinuing the arrangement, this gives him an opportunity for throwing it over. It is a very long Clause, but it covers a comparatively small matter, and I am surprised at legal gentlemen becoming involved in such an extraordinary tangle regarding it.

Mr. HARDIE: The reply of the Noble Lord gives me the reason for rising to my feet. I read here in the Clause that where the landlord has granted to the tenant a valid lease for a term ending after 24th June, 1923, or has entered into an agreement for such a term—there is also a provision as to reservation of rent—the landlord may by three months' notice in writing determine the said lease or tenancy. I gather so much, reading the Clause as a layman. The Noble Lord in his reply, despite the fact that this Clause gives the power of determining the lease or tenancy, states that the tenant cannot be put out of the house. If he cannot be put out of the house and if he still comes under the other Act why give power under this Clause for determining the lease? The word "determination,' to me, is something that gives a period. I want to know whether the statement made by the Noble Lord is true, or whether the wording in the new Clause is correct. If it is such a simple thing as was suggested by the Solomon wisdom we have just had from the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden), I do not see the necessity for wrapping it up in such involved language. I can understand that this is quite a simple thing to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who has spent all his life, and seems to enjoy, working through involved Clauses, but hon. Members who are a bit green on the subject, and who have not developed that
wisdom of Solomon which we have just heard, are in a different position, and it seems to me a terrible thing if we are to be told that this is determining a lease or tenancy and yet that the tenant cannot be ejected from his house.

Mr. F. GRAY: The matter is purely one of construction, and therefore it is natural that the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary should get up and speak, being a layman, with every possible confidence in giving his construction of what it means. I have no doubt that the Minister of Health, when he speaks, will speak with even greater confidence, but I would point out that, sitting below the Gangway on this side, there are six eminent lawyers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names!"] I was going to say that we are equally divided, and we are much hoping that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) will get up as the independent chairman of these eminent lawyers and give the casting vote. If it so happen that there is an equal division of opinion of lawyers here, what do you suppose is going to happen when this Bill becomes an Act and is going to be construed in the Courts, where we know that 50 per cent. of the lawyers must inevitably be wrong? I should have thought that, from a common-sense standpoint, the first thing would be to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health what he intends to do by this Clause, and, having ascertained that, endeavour, if necessary with the aid of the Attorney-General, to select some simple words which will carry out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and will, at the same time, be understood and, from a legal standpoint, accurately express the objects in view.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The first thing to note about this Amendment is that it is not part of the Government's original plan at all. It is nothing that they thought it necessary to introduce. It is an Amendment moved by a Noble Lord in another place, and accepted without any discussion whatever. The second point is that it is very important that it should be drafted in a form that is clear and precise, because this is the 59th minute of the 11th hour, and there is no further opportunity, and the right
hon. Gentleman cannot condemn and despise Amendments moved now, and then copy them and introduce them in another House. The difficulty appears to be this: The right hon. Gentleman says that under this Clause a tenant who has a lease can do one of two things. He can say: "Despite this Bill, I abide by the terms of my agreement, and I am content to pay the increase which I contracted to pay." If he does not care to do that, he can share, in common with all other tenants, the protracted protection of these Acts, and he can say: "I will become a statutory tenant, and I will have the two years the same as anyone else can have, and at the conclusion of that time I shall be as others are."
That is a fair statement of the position, but the difficulty raised by my hon. and learned Friend the member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), who has put his finger on many of the weakest spots in the Bill, and pointed out things that the Minister has had later to acknowledge were weak spots, is this: He says: "When this lease is determined, is it not a fact that the landlord thereby has entered into possession of the house?" If so, according to Clause 2, Sub-section (l), the house becomes decontrolled, and, therefore, the tenant is deprived of that statutory protection which we are told by the Noble Lord is the alternative to the continuation of the pre-arranged lease. If that be so, it ought to be put right, and with that end in view, I propose to move this Amendment, namely, to add, at the end of the proposed Lords Amendment, the words
Provided that such determination of the said lease or tenancy shall not be construed as confirming possession under Section 2, Sub-section (1), of this Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is too late. He ought to have tendered that Amendment before the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," was put.

Captain BENN: In that case, I do not know what can be done. It is very important that the matter should be put right, because we shall have endless trouble by not having these things in watertight form. I was not aware, under the Rules, that one had to move an Amendment before the Question was put.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry for the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who has lost his opportunity of putting his Amendment, but, on the other hand, I do not really think he has suffered in any way by that loss, because the danger which he apprehends does not, in fact, exist. He has pointed out that this was not a Government Amendment, and he has put that forward as if there were some objection to it on that ground, but even Governments do not think of every case that may arise under a Bill of this kind.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS GRIFFITHS: We pointed things out.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. This was never mentioned nor suggested during all the Debates that we had in Committee upstairs or here on the Floor of the House, and when the case was put to us in another place, it seemed to me that it was a case in which there was a considerable hardship inflicted upon certain individuals, and that we ought to do what we could to mitigate or remove that hardship. When the hon. and gallant Member for Leith goes on to complain that it was accepted without discussion in another place, may I remind him and his hon. and learned Friends that there are some very eminent lawyers in the House of Lords—even more eminent than those who sit upon the benches opposite—and if they did not think it necessary to raise any legal point upon this Clause, I should think that is very fair circumstantial evidence in favour of my contention that there are no such dangers as those which have been suggested. What is determined under this Clause is not the control over the house, but the particular

arrangement which exists between the landlord and the tenant, and really, as my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) pointed out, the tenant will have a choice. He can either abide by the terms of the lease as it is, or he can take his place as a statutory tenant, and no doubt he will do whichever suits him the better. If the lease gives him security long after 1925, he will probably prefer to continue the terms of the lease as it is; if, on the other hand, it is a comparatively short lease, and comes to an end before 1925, he may very possibly prefer to let the lease go, and take his place as a statutory tenant.

Of course, he does not get absolute security as a statutory tenant. There are all those cases which are specified in Section 5 of the original Act, or Clause 3 as it is in this Bill, and under certain circumstances the landlord may be able' to get an order from the Court—if there is no such lease existing as he has had the precaution to make—and obtain possession of the house. Probably that is not very likely to arise, but that will be a matter which doubtless the tenant will take into account in weighing up the advantages of the two courses which are open to him. I contend that the continuance of control has put a special hardship upon landlords who made agreements of this kind, in good faith, thinking that the Act was going to come to an end in 1923, and all that we are doing here is to remove that hardship on the landlord, without really doing any injustice to any tenant.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 128.

Division No. 340.
AYES.
[5.57 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Brass, Captain W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leipold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clarry, Reginald George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Briggs, Harold
Clayton, G. C.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bruford, R.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bruton, Sir James
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Banks, Mitchell
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Cope, Major William


Barnston, Major Harry
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Becker, Harry
Button, H. S.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cadogan, Major Edward
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Berry, Sir George
Cassels, J. D.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Remer, J. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Remnant, Sir James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Rentoul, G. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rhodes, Lieut-Col. J. P.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lamb, J. Q.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lorden, John William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M. 
Lorimer, H. D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Russell, William (Bolton)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lumley, L. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Flanagan, W. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Furness, G. J.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Sandon, Lord


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Garland, C. S.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Singleton, J. E.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Skelton, A. N.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Molloy, Major L. G. S
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gretton, Colonel John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Stanley, Lord


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Sykes, Major Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harrison, F. C.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, Major S. E.
Pease, William Edwin
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hawke, John Anthony
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
White, Lt. Col. G. D. (Southport)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Perring, William George
Winterton, Earl


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Peto, Basil E.
Wise, Frederick


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Philipson, Mabel
Wolmer, Viscount


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Privett, F. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.



Hughes, Collingwood
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs and Captain Douglas King.


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leach, W.


Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Greenall, T.
Linfield, F. C.


Attlee, C. R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Barnes, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
M'Entee, V. L.


Bonwick, A.
Hardie, George D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bowdier, W. A.
Harney, E. A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Buckle, J.
Hastings, Patrick
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Chapple, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Middleton, G.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Morel, E. D.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Oswald


Collison, Levi
Hill, A.
Muir, John W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hillary, A. E.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Darbishire, C. W.
Hinds, John
Newbold, J. T. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H.
O'Grady, Captain James


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Oliver, George Harold


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Duncan, C.
Irving, Dan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Dunnico, H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillipps, Vivian


Ede, James Chuter
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Falconer, J.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Riley, Ben


Foot, Isaac
Lansbury, George
Ritson, J.


Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)




Rose, Frank H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Whiteley, W.


Royce, William Stapleton
Sturrock, J. Leng
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Saklatvala, S.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Salter, Dr. A.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thornton, M.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Shakespeare, G. H.
Turner, Ben
Wintringham, Margaret


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Shinwell, Emanuel
Warne, G. H.
Wright, W.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Webb, Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Simpson, J. Hope
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.



Snell, Harry
Weir, L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Ammon.


Snowden, Philip
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)



Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

CLAUSE 3.—(Restriction on right to possession.)

(1) Sub-section (1) of Section five of the principal Act (which relates to restriction on right to possession) shall from and after the passing of this Act have effect subject to the following Amendments:

(a) for paragraph (b) the following paragraph shall be substituted—
(b) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being his subtenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, and, where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant, the court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or

(b) for paragraph (d) the following paragraph shall be substituted—
(d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or for any person bona fide residing with him or for some person engaged in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into and (except as otherwise provided by this Sub-section) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available which is reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, and proximity to place of work and which consists either of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Act; or

(c) for paragraph (e) the following paragraph shall be substituted—
(e) the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of a local authority, or statutory undertaking, or for any purpose which, in the opinion of the court, is in the public interest, and the court in either case is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or

(d)the following paragraphs shall be added at the end of paragraph (g)—
(h)"the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house or sub-let part of the dwelling-house, the remainder being already sub-let";
(i) the dwelling-house consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the tenant has committed an offence as holder of the licence or has not conducted the business to the satisfaction of the licensing justices or the police authority, or has carried it on in a manner detrimental to the public interest, or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused;

(e) in paragraph (ii) the words "or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for employment on such work has been entered into" shall be inserted after the word "holding."

(f) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (iv):—
(iv) where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age and where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord, did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it.

(2) Sub-section (6) of Section five of the principal Act shall be extended—
(a) so as to apply in any case where the landlord has, after the passing of this Act, obtained an order or judgment
for possession or ejectment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of the said Section, and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts; and
(b) so as to authorise the court, in addition to making an order for payment of compensation by the landlord to the former tenant, to direct that the dwelling-house shall not be excluded from the principal Act by reason of the landlord having come into possession thereof under the said order or judgment, and if such a direction is given the principal Act shall apply and be deemed to have applied to the dwelling-house as from the date mentioned in such direction.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Clause 3 and insert

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on right to possession.)

The following Section shall be substituted for Section five of the principal Act, namely:

"5.—(1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—

"(a) any rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid, or any other obligation of the tenancy (whether under the contract of tenancy or under this Act) so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of this Act has been broken or not performed; or
"(b) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being his subtenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, and, where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant, the court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or
"(c) the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken any other steps as a result of which he would, in the opinion of the court, be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession; or
1116
"(d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age, or for any person bona, fide residing with him, or for some person engaged in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into, and (except as otherwise provided by this Sub-section) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available which is reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, and proximity to place of work and which consists either of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by this Act in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies; or
"(e) the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of a local authority, or statutory undertaking, or for any purpose Which, in the opinion of the court, is in the public interest, and the court in either case is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or
"(f) the landlord became the landlord after service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war and requires the house for his personal occupation and offers the tenant accommodation on reasonable terms in the same dwelling-house, such accommodation being considered by the court as reasonably sufficient in the circumstances; or
"(g) the dwelling-house is required for occupation as a residence by a former tenant thereof who gave up occupation in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or
"(h) the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house or sub-let part of the dwelling-house, the remainder being already sub-let; or
"(i) the dwelling-house consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the tenant has committed an offence as holder of the licence or has not conducted the business to the satisfaction of the licensing justices or the police authority, or has carried it on in a manner detrimental to the public interest, or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused;

and, in any such case as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.

"The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this Sub-section—

"(i) where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord, and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment and he has ceased to be in that employment; or"
(ii) where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee, or of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries pending the formation of such committee, that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding, or with whom conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for employment on such work has been entered into; or"
(iii) where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling-house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or"
(iv) where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord became the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the dwelling-house is reasonably required by him for occupation as a residence for himselff or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age; or"
(v) where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the dwelling-house is reasonably required by him for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age, and the court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it.

"(2) At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any such dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant there from, or in the case of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and not executed at any subsequent time, the court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.

"(3) Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act but not executed, and, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.

"(4) Notwithstanding anything in Section one hundred and forty-three of the County Courts Act, 1888, or in Section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, every warrant for delivery of possession of, or to enter and give possession of, any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, shall remain in force for three months from the day next after the last day named in the judgment or order for delivery of possession or ejectment, or, in the case of a warrant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, from the date of the issue of the warrant, and in either case for such further period or periods, if any, as the court shall from time to time, whether before or after the expiration of such three months, direct

"(5) An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this Section shall not affect the right of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let before proceedings for recovery of possession or ejectment were commenced, to retain possession under this Section, or be in any way operative against any such sub-tenants.

"(6) Where a landlord has obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment under this Section on the ground that he requires a dwelling-house for his own occupation, and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the court may order the landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as the result of the order or judgment.

"(7) The provisions of the last preceding Sub-section shall apply in any case where the landlord has, after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, and it is subsequently made to appear to the Court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, and in any such case the court may, if it thinks fit, in addition to making an order for payment of compensation by the landlord to the former tenant, direct that the dwelling-house shall not be excluded from this Act by reason of the landlord having come into possession thereof under the said order or judgment, and if such a direction is given, this Act shall apply and be deemed to have applied to the dwelling-house as from the date mentioned in such direction."

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has handed in an Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I understand his claim is that in the redrafting of the Clause in the other place, an ambiguity has been removed, but that ambiguity was one which might be raised by some people in favour of one party, and by other people in favour of another party; and that he bases his claim to move his Amendment to the Lords Amendment on the fact that the paragraph—as I remember it being stated in Committee by some Members—as it left this House did not appear. Do I understand that that is the hon. Member's meaning?

Mr. FOOT: My contention on Third Reading was that paragraph (iv), as it left this House, bore a meaning contrary to the meaning as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. It has not come back with a different meaning, as I submit, from the meaning it had when it left this House. It is upon that ground I ask that I may move the Amendment. I admit there may be a conflict of opinion as to whether the interpretation I put upon the Clause was the right interpretation, and there was a Division in the House on that matter. My Amendment is based on the contention that the paragraph as it comes back from the Lords is really a different one from that which went up from this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very technical and difficult matter. I do not feel at the moment that I can give a judgment on that question, but, in view of the claim that there is a doubt, I think I must give the hon. Member the opportunity of moving his Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in Sub-section (1, iv), to leave out the words
or
(v) where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the dwelling-house is reasonably required by him for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age, and
the Court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it.
and to insert instead thereof the words,
and the Court is satisfied that greater hardship will be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it.
Under the principal Act, there was one very important date, namely, September, 1917, and, as has already been stated, if a man had bought his house before September, 1917, there was no necessity for him to prove alternative accommodation in desiring to obtain the house for himself. All that that landlord had to do was to satisfy the Court that upon the balance of hardship he ought to be granted the house. If he bought the house after September, 1917, then, like any other person desiring to obtain possession, he had to show that there was alternative accommodation available. When we were discussing the Bill on Third Reading, I said that, having regard to my own experience, having been advising on this Measure from time to time, I knew that it was the usual course for the solicitor advising his client to ask in these cases when the house was bought. It was the very first question which we always put to any landlord who came for advice—"When did you buy your house?" If, in fact, he bought the house before September, 1917, then we knew there was a chance of obtaining possession for him. If he bought the house after that, the difficulty of providing alternative accommodation was so great that we advised him not to go to the expense and trouble of going to the Court at all. A great advantage was conferred upon the landlord who had bought before September, 1917. That is the law until to-morrow night, when the present Act expires.
In the Bill with the Lords Amendment, substantial alterations have been made. There is, first of all, the new date. Instead of that important date being September, 1917, it is the 30th June, 1922. That will be the date to which every lawyer advising on the Act in future will immediately look. He will ask, "When did you buy your house?" and if the landlord says, "Before the 30th June, 1922," then, under this Bill, there will be no inquiry into the balance of hardship, and if the landlord can satisfy the Court that he reasonably requires it for his own
occupation, he is entitled to possession. If he bought after that date, then he has got to satisfy the Court, first of all, that he reasonably requires the house for his own accommodation or for that of one of his children over 18 years of age, and he has to satisfy the Court also that, taking the convenience of the tenant and taking his own convenience, greater hardship will be caused by refusing his application than will be caused to the tenant by granting it. That is a fundamental change as compared with the old Measure. I submit that it is too big a change, and I want the House to realise what trouble will be caused in the country if the Bill passes in its present form.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is not the hon. Member now discussing what we discussed on the Report stage, namely, the change made in the Bill as compared with the principal Act? That seems to be raising a larger question than can be raised on the Amendment now before the House, and which I understood was to put the hon. Member's interpretation of the meaning of the original Sub-section in the Lords Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: It is a different change, as I submit, that is now brought about. As the Bill left the House on the Third Reading, it did intend to bring about the change in the existing law, but as it now comes back from the Lords, it does effect a different change from that intended when it left this House after Third Reading.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will only keep to those points, he will be quite right.

Mr. FOOT: As the Bill left this House on the Third Reading, my submission was that all persons who had bought before June, 1922, according to the last words of that Sub-section, would actually be subject to the necessity of proving alternative accommodation. A very substantial alteration has now been made in sending this Clause back to us. It is quite clear the Government's intention—and this is my submission—that the Government's intention is now made clear in this Clause, and opens up a very serious possibility which would justify us in supporting the Amendment which I am putting before the House, and voting for it. I submit I would be in order in showing what the
consequence would be of carrying out the law as it is now put by the Lords Amendment. The matter is one of serious import. I suppose that 19 out of every 20 owners in this country who are desirous of possessing the houses they themselves bought before June, 1922, really all those desiring occupation, bought before June, 1922—most lawyers would agree that there has been very little change in house property during the last 12 months, though there was considerable change before 1922—and it means now that in 19 cases out of 20 those who are desirous of getting their house for their own occupation will be able to go to the Court and prove that they reasonably require it, and so obtain possession of the house. I know that some reference has been made earlier to-day to the words at the end of paragraph (i) as mentioned in the Lords Amendment—
and, in any such case as aforesaid. the Court considers it reasonable to make such order or give such judgment.
Emphasis has been placed upon those words. My submission is that a County Court Judge would not be entitled to read into those words something that is different from the provision in paragraphs (iv) and (v). In paragraph (v) we see the balance of hardship considered; and in paragraph (iv) the balance of hardship is not to be gone into. Whatever may be the general words earlier in the paragraph it would be impossible for a Judge, having regard to the fact that the balance of hardship is not mentioned at all in paragraph (iv), to go into that question in any sense whatever. If the landlord can show that he reasonably desires the house for his own occupation then he has practically an unconditional right to demand it.
The Amendment I suggest is that we shall strike out paragraph (v) altogether and that we shall add words relating to the balance of hardship to paragraph (iv). Perhaps the House will see then what will happen! If this Amendment be carried the landlord who has bought before 1922 would be entitled to get possession if he can show that he should have the house on the balance of hardship. That is a very great advantage. The man who has bought on the 6th of June, 1922, would have to show alternative accommodation. It may be asked: Why are we conferring such an advantage upon the landlord? Landlords under my Amendment would
be very much better off than under the old Act. In the first place, they will have a very much later date, June, 1922, instead of September, 1917, so that we shall gather most of the landlords in; and, secondly, those who become owners since June, 1922, will have to prove alternative hardship—it is true—but of a very different kind to that necessary under the old Act. The alternative accommodation now is by no means so onerous as it was under the old Measure. Under the old Measure it was very difficult to prove alternative accommodation because of the wording of the Section, but now the landlord will have the advantage of a looser term and of a wider definition of alternative accommodation. So that the landlord will be in a very much better position even if my Amendment be carried.
I would ask the House to consider this: The advantage that is given by the Bill as it now stands by the Lords Amendment would be conferred not only on those present owners who have bought since June, 1922, but all future owners, and undoubtedly this will result in many landlords holding up their tenants to ransom. The landlord who at the present time cannot sell his house because nobody is going to buy a lawsuit—it is almost an impossible proposition—those who have had to do with the selling of cottages or small house property know that in the proposed buying up of houses where the tenant is in occupation that there is no sale effected, or very rarely—the landlord now will be able to go to the tenant and to say: "Somebody wants to buy this house, he is in great difficulty, he is a man living, say, in a couple of rooms or in furnished lodgings. I shall have no difficulty in getting possession. Now you have a chance to buy; my price is so much," and if the tenant does not buy it means that this person will buy the house and the tenant will be turned out. It will mean an immense disturbance amongst tenants throughout the country.
In the speech that he made upon the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health referred to the hardships of landlords. I admit that. I think that landlords in many cases desiring houses for their own occupation have been very harshly treated. The
right hon. Gentleman gave us a number of letters which I think corresponded with the facts as we know them throughout the country; but there was not one illustration which would not be covered by this Amendment. He gave us one case after another where the landlord was placed in a very much worse position than the tenant, and where the tenant very often was making a good deal of money out of a furnished house, and the landlord himself was very badly placed.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment and to the Bill as it left the House on the Third Reading. His argument seems to me directed beyond that period. Perhaps he will explain the position he took up when he said that as the Bill left this House, there were two possible interpretations to it.

Mr. FOOT: I understand it would not have been possible for me on the Third Reading, holding the view that I did as to the meaning of the Clause, then to have advanced my present arguments. I could not have said:"This Clause bears a certain interpretation, but if it bear a contrary interpretation, my arguments are different." That is my difficulty. Taking the view I did of the Clause I was bound to accept my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the Clause. I know the matter is a complicated one, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, to the House that the Clause as it left on the Third Reading, and as it was submitted to us on the Third Reading, gives an advantage to those who became landlords since June, 1922, and exposed all earlier landlords to the necessity of proving alternative accommodation. Whatever was the intention of the Government, the wording of the Clause did bear that construction! [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] That was my contention, and I was supported in that not only by another right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, but an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. He supported me in the view held, and shared my apprehensions. Taking, therefore, that view of that Clause, it would have been impossible for me then to have advanced the argument I am advancing now. I can only advance those arguments because the Bill has come back in another form.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Might I suggest to the hon. Member that he should compare the wording of the Clause as it left this House with the wording of the Clause as it has come back from the Lords. If he point out the difference the House will get some clear idea!

Mr. FOOT: I am trying to do that, but I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. If hon. Members have the Bill in front of them as it left this House on Third Reading, they will see that this Clause which is the subject of controversy, is at the bottom of page 4, and is paragraph (f). That paragraph (f) reads as follows:
(f) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (iv).
(iv) Where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over 18 years of age and where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the Court is satisfied that the greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it.
That is as it left the House.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Well, then?

Mr. FOOT: That has given place now to two paragraphs of the Lords Amendments. Hon. Members will note that the wording is very much more full in the latter Amendments, is set out more fully, and the connecting word between paragraphs (iv) and (v) is "or," and not as it is in what I term the offending Clause. As the Clause left on the Third Reading it was open, as I think, to the construction I have put upon it that the words "and where" ["and where the landlord, or the husband"] only dealt with one class of persons. That question was put in another place as soon as the Clause came up for consideration. It was asked whether one class of person was dealt with in this offending section or two classes of persons. That question was never answered, because my right hon. Friend's representative in that Rouse said immediately:"The whole Clause will be recast." That was the answer given to that criticism, so that it is upon that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we have here the substantial change.

Sir P. PILDITCH: The hon. Member has not yet compared the Clauses.

Mr. FOOT: All I can do, I think, is to read out the one Clause which I have called the "offending" Clause, and if hon. Members have before them the Clause and the new paragraphs (iv) and (v) of the Lords Amendments, I think they can very easily make the comparison for themselves.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I do not think so.

Mr. FOOT: In the offending Clause 3 the wording to which I was drawing attention in paragraph (v), substituted paragraph (iv) was "and where" ["and where the landlord or the husband"], and I said that that was open to the construction that there was only that class of person dealt with, while in the Lords Amendment there were two classes. It is quite clear that two classes of persons are dealt with.

Sir P. PILDITCH: That is a drafting change!

Mr. FOOT: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of such consequence that we welcome the opportunity of putting this appeal before the House and before the right hon. Gentleman. If he can accept this Amendment he will effect this: that the landlords are placed in a very much better position than they were, for this to a very great extent meets the hardship to which he referred on the Second Reading, and which we endorse. He will have done that, and at the same time he will have saved himself the immense trouble that will be caused if the Bill passes in its present form. I indulged in a prophecy on the Third Reading of the Bill here, and I make this further prophecy, that if the Bill passes in its present form there will be great astonishment throughout the country and an immense protest, a hurricane protest, from a good many people who cannot protect themselves and require some protection in these very difficult times.

Mr. HARNEY: The, position is a little bit obscure and I shall do my best to make it clear. Apart from the ambiguity of the language in the Bill as it left this House, there is no doubt that the intention of the Government was at any rate quite clear. A date was fixed, namely, 22nd June in the case of all persons who became landlords prior to 22nd June.
They could get the tenant out if they required the house for themselves or their children, provided they were able to show that it was a matter of greater hardship to refuse the application than to grant it. That was the position as the Bill left this House. It provided that the landlord could get his house for himself or his children provided ho could show that greater hardship will be done to himself by allowing the tenant to remain than would be done to the tenant. On the other side the Bill says to the landlord,"You can get the house for yourself or your children provided you can find alternative accommodation for the tenant."

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): Where do you get that?

Mr. GERALD HURST: It is not to be found on page 5 of the Bill.

Mr. HARNEY: I am asked where do you get it from that the Bill as introduced into this House and as it left this House provided or intended to provide that landlords who became such prior to 22nd June were entitled to get their houses back in cases of hardship.

Mr. HURST: What about alternative accommodation?

Mr. HARNEY: I am not saying a word now about alternative accommodation. I doubt if the Minister of Health will contradict me when I say that the Bill as introduced by him, and as he understood it, meant that where the landlord became such prior to 22nd June he was entitled to recover possession of his house in case of the hardship being greater on him than the tenant. In the case of a landlord who became such after that date, he was not entitled to recover possession unless he could find alternative accommodation.

Mr. HURST: Where do you find that?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the House will allow the hon. and learned Member to complete his argument.

Mr. HARNEY: The Lords Amendment provides that
Where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over 18 years of age, or for any person bona fide residing with him or
for some person engaged in his whole-time employment and the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available which is reasonably suitable.
Does not that clearly say that a landlord who wants a house for himself or his children is entitled to possession on condition that he provides alternative accommodation? If the hon. Member will turn to page 4 of the Bill as it left the House he will see that alternative accommodation need not be found in certain cases, and one of them is when he became the landlord before 22nd June. Having done that perhaps the hon. Member who interrupted me will agree with me now that the Bill as it left the House contained two categories: (1) dealing with landlords prior to 22nd June, who need not provide alternative accommodation, but only prove a case of hardship; and (2) another category of landlords, after 22nd June, who, if they want the House, must show that alternative accommodation is available. As this provision comes back from the Lords it provides that where the landlord became such prior to June, 1922, he is entitled to get possession where he reasonably requires it, whereas, as the Bill left this House, the landlord who was the landlord prior to 22nd June had to prove a case of hardship. A landlord in that category can obtain possession now if he shows that he reasonably requires it, but when the Bill left this House a landlord who became such after 22nd June, if he required possession, would have to find alternative accommodation.
As the Bill comes back to us, a landlord, after 22nd June, need not find alternative accommodation, and only needs to show that it is a case of hardship. Does that not make it perfectly clear that, as regards the one category prior to 22nd June, the tenant is put in a worse position to this extent, that now he can be put out if the landlord merely reasonably requires the house, whereas, as the Bill left this House, he could not be put out unless hardship was proved? Therefore the position of the tenant after that date is worse, because a tenant before could not be put out without alternative accommodation being provided, but now he can be put out without finding alternative accommodation if the landlord proves hardship. Therefore there is a vital difference as this Bill comes back to us from the Lords.
What is proposed is a fundamental difference, and I shall support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), which, at all events, brings the Lords Amendment more into line with the general character of the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My experience of this House is much shorter than that of many hon. Members, but I do not recollect such an extraordinary situation arising as appears to have arisen this afternoon. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has moved an Amendment on the grounds that he understood a particular passage in this Bill in a different sense from that which was understood by, I think, the majority of the House, or the interpretation which was placed upon it by myself in very clear language, and the interpretation put upon it by several of the hon. Member's Friends opposite. You have allowed the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, to move an Amendment on the ground that his Amendment, if carried, would bring back the Bill to the interpretation which the hon. Member himself put upon it. The Amendment, of which the hon. Member has not furnished me with a copy, if it were carried, would provide that in the first paragraph the landlord who became the landlord before the 30th June, 1922, would have to show that greater hardship was caused to him than to the tenant if the Court refused to grant an order for possession.
I submit that by no possible strain of the interpretation which the hon. Member has put upon the Bill as it left this House could that meaning be given to that Clause. What the hon. Member argued, and what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) has argued was that alternative accommodation would have to be provided by the landlord in certain cases and that that alternative accommodation is not now required. That is not the whole effect of this Amendment. The effect is to introduce wholly new matter, and, with all respect, it appears to me that the discussion which has been proceeding on this Amendment is really a revival of the discussion which we had on the Report stage and in Committee upon the conditions under which a landlord who required a house for his own occupation is entitled to get possession. I must
point out to the House that this matter was made perfectly clear on the Report stage. Let me first remind the House what the original proposal was. It was that the landlord who became a landlord before the 30th June, 1922, should not have to provide alternative accommodation in any of the cases mentioned in paragraph (d), and that the landlord who became a landlord after the 30th June should have to show greater hardship to himself than to the tenant. On
Report, it was attempted, mistakenly perhaps, to shorten the Clause by putting the two cases into one paragraph. I recognised myself that the use of the word "where" twice over in a somewhat different sense might give rise to confusion. On Report I moved an Amendment to pat in the words "in any case" after the word "and" and just before the second "where." I then attempted to explain to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) who said he did not clearly apprehend the meaning of the paragraph—I said to him that in the Act there are a number of paragraphs each of which begins with the word "where" and the first "where" in this case was at the beginning of paragraph F (4).

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the sentence before that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. If the hon. Member will imagine that before the word "and" ("and where the landlord") there is a bracket, and after the words "nineteen hundred and twenty-two" there is another bracket, that will perhaps make the sense of the Clause clearer. The second "where" makes a different kind of exception. It is provided that in any case where the landlord became the landlord before the 30th June he is to prove greater hardship to himself than to the tenant before he can get an order. I think the hon. Member at that time understood the meaning of that paragraph as he did not pursue the matter further.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I say by way of explanation that I did not pursue the matter further, because the right hon. Gentleman undertook to reconsider it in another place.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Although he was of opinion that the intention might be
made clearer, there was no doubt in his own mind as to the meaning of the paragraph.

Mr. PRINGLE: There was.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing himself justice.

Mr. PRINGLE: Why did you not put in the brackets when you had the opportunity? Why was no comma put in? At any rate, what I had in my mind was that the Clause was to be redrafted in another place, although the hon. Member for Bodmin said on the Third Reading that it was perfectly plain as it was.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) speaks with such slowness that I think sometimes when he gets to the end of a sentence he has forgotten how it began. He has several times spoken at great length and with inordinate slowness in giving his version of what the Clause meant when it left the House. But unfortunately the version he has given today is the exact opposite of the version which he gave on the Report stage. He says that the person who became a landlord after June, 1922, has merely to show that hardship would be caused by refusing the order.

Mr. HARNEY: I really think it is the right hon. Gentleman himself who is confused. What I was speaking of on the Report stage was this. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the intention of the Clause, but I pointed out that the language used made it appear to have a contrary meaning to that intention.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member was trying to make quite clear what he thought was the meaning of the Clause, and he was vexed because my hon. and gallant Friend near me (Captain Elliot) interrupted him. He said that if my hon. and gallant Friend would be good enough to look at the wording of the Bill he did not think he would make any further contradiction. That showed that at that time the hon. Member was taking a different view.

Mr. HARNEY: I took the same view on both occasions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is to be allowed on the ground that the hon. Member did not know what the meaning of the Clause was, we may have Amendments moved to Lords Amendments of any kind or sort, because as far as I can see the hon. Member changed his opinion as to the meaning of the Clause between the Third Reading and the consideration of the Lords Amendments. I do not propose to argue again the case for this Bill as it was at the time of the Third Reading. The effect of the Amendments made in another place is in no way to alter the sense of the Bill. They are merely drafting Amendments, and I hope if there is to be any further Debate on this Clause it will be confined to the point of Order laid down by the Chair.

Mr. D. HERBERT: May I ask whether, after the explanation we have had, the Amendment is now in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have the disadvantage of not being a lawyer. I have listened carefully to what has been said. I have had my doubts all along. As I said at the very beginning, I gave the benefit of the doubt to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). I think, having done that, the House should not take advantage of what I thought it right to do by discussing the matter at over length. I did not lay down the law on the point.

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not propose to proceed at any length with this particular Amendment, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has not given a fair or a complete account of what occurred on the Report stage. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman then moved an Amendment with the object of making the matter clear, and the fact that he did thus move an Amendment showed that the Clause as it left the Committee was not clear. But I am not going to enter into the question of the particular Amendment thus moved. On account of the discussion on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman withdrew that Amendment, and the important thing I would remind him is that when he was replying to me on the Report stage he said that if the hon. Member for Penistone will imagine that after the word "where" there is a bracket and after the words "nineteen
hundred and twenty" there is another bracket, it will make the case clear. I think hon. and learned Members in this House will be able to confirm me when I say that no Court will imagine the existence of a bracket where there is no bracket. We cannot interpret the words of a section or of an Act of Parliament by imagining in it what is not there, and I think the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) will agree with me as to that. In this particular Clause the punctuation was bad. There was no comma even at the end of the first Clause, and the two paragraphs beginning with the word "where" were joined together by the word "and." In these circumstances any Court would read the two Clauses as a single Clause, and not as separate Clauses describing two different classes. I would not express an opinion with absolute certainty on the matter, for I recognise how difficult it is when these things come to be interpreted in a Court to forecast what the judgment of the Court will be. I am certain that whatever the right hon. Gentleman intended he has need to make an alteration if he desires to describe two different classes in this paragraph, and the only way to do that is to alter the conjunction between the two paragraphs by substituting "or" for "and."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The wording of the paragraph has been altered, and it was found necessary to use the word "and."

7.0 P.M.

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think that helps, neither do I think it would help the Court. After the experience the Ministry of Health has had of the Law Courts, I am astonished at the confidence the Minister has shown in his interpretation of this Clause. We had an official interpretation by the Minister of Health in regard to a Section in a former Act which had to be decided in the House of Lords, and the decision in regard to which had unfortunate results for the Government, and when we find the Minister of Health, unaided by a Law Officer here venturing to interpret a Clause with equal confidence, one has certain doubts as to what the ultimate result will be. My own view is that the Clause as it
stood was both ungrammatical and unintelligible. I did not move an Amendment because I did not know how to amend that which was unintelligible. My own anxiety was to get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman to make his meaning, whatever it was, clear in another place. That was the undertaking I assumed I got on the Report stage, but the right hon. Gentleman denied on the Third Reading that he had given it. At the same time he endeavoured to overwhelm me with ridicule by repeating a nursery rhyme. I think the nursery rhyme is now rather on the other foot, or rather on the, foot of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Now the Government have made it perfectly clear what the Amendment means, it is important that the House should have an opportunity of coming to a decision on it in a plain way. There is no doubt that, owing to its obscurity, most hon. Members entertained doubts as to its real meaning. I know my hon. Friends on the Committee upstairs regarded the thing as ambiguous and unintelligible. They believed it was going to lead to litigation. They believed the litigation would end in favour of the tenant, and, with those Machiavellian motives, they were prepared to allow the right hon. Gentleman to rush head-long to his fate. I am inclined to be more generous to him. I did not want him to get into trouble in the Courts at all. I did not want him to have to introduce an amending Bill, and I besought him to have it amended in another place, or at least to make clear what he was doing. He did not show any recognition of my kindly motive, nor has he shown any gratitude at any stage of the Bill. I can say at least that, whatever the result of this discussion, litigation has been saved, and as litigation has been saved, a certain advantage has been secured. On the other hand, I believe the form of the Amendment, which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has moved, is in accordance with the professions the Government made on the Second Reading to deal with hard cases. This effectively deals with all the hard cases the right hon. Gentleman put before the House on Second Reading. It will leave no hard case unremedied, and, at the same time, it will prevent certain things happening
under the Clause as now framed, which neither the Government, its supporters, nor the people outside had any reason to expect.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 70.

Division No. 341.]
AYES.
[7.3 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gosling, Harry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Perring, William George


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Peto, Basil E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Philipson, Mabel


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pielou, D. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Privett, F. J.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Banks, Mitchell
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Raine, W.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Halstead, Major D.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Becker, Harry
Harrison, F. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Remer, J. R.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hawke, John Anthony
Remnant, Sir James


Berry, Sir George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Brass, Captain W.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isigtn, W)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Briggs, Harold
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bruford, R
Hopkins, John W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckle, J.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hughes, Collingwood
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sexton, James


Cassels, J. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Singleton, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton. G. C.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, J. Q.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cope, Major William
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lorden, John William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sudden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lumley, L. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
White, Lt. Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Morning, Captain Algernon H.
Winterton, Earl


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Flanagan, W. H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh



Furness, G. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Ganzoni, Sir John
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Commander the Rt. Hon. B. M. Eyres-Monsell and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Garland, C. S.
Pease, William Edwin



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pennetather, De Fonblanque



Goff, Sir R. Park
Penny, Frederick George



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Phillipps, Vivian


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Royce, William Stapleton


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hill, A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bonwick, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowdler, W. A.
Hinds, John
Simpson, J. Hope


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Snell, Harry


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sullivan, J.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Collison, Levi
Lansbury, George
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Leach, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Linfieid, F. C.
Thornton, M.


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Duncan, C.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ede, James Chuter
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Falconer, J.
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Foot and Mr. Harney.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Suspension of increase of rent on ground of disrepair.)

(2) When, after the issue of any such certificate, the landlord has executed to the satisfaction of the sanitary authority the repairs which require to be executed in Border to put the dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, the authority may, on the application of the landlord and upon payment of a fee of one shilling, issue a report to that effect.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "may" ["the authority may, on the applications of the landlord"] and insert "shall."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment which, I think, is obviously reasonable. The local authorities put on the landlord the duty of carrying out certain specified repairs, and when he has carried out those repairs he is clearly entitled to a certificate saying that he has done so according to the specification of the local authority. The purpose of inserting the word "shall" is to give him a right to the certificate when he has done the repairs.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I should like to know whether the landlord is placed in a more favourable position than the tenant. I am not sure as to the reference
to the principal Act in this connection, but I think the House ought to know whether, if we pass this Amendment, as the local authority is compelled to issue a certificate to the landlord, it is also compelled to issue such a certificate to the tenant if he desires it. I think the Minister should explain whether the tenant and the landlord in relation to the local authority are on the same footing.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cases are quite different. This is clearly a certificate that the work which the local authority has specified in its certificate given to the tenant has been done. That is different from the tenant asking for a certificate that his house is not in a reasonable state of repair. That cannot be given unless the local authority is satisfied that that is the case.

CLAUSE 5.—(Notice of increase of rent.)

(1) The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, on such terms and conditions as respect arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable, and if the Court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1) leave out the words
shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act.
and insert
if satisfied that any error or omission in a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, is due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the landlord, shall have power to amend such notice.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As I explained at an earlier stage, the intention all along was not to give benefits to the landlords who deliberately had omitted some item from his notice of increase, but to allow accidental omissions from a very complicated schedule to be altered by the Court. The object of this Amendment is to put actual words into the Bill to make it clear that these alterations only apply to cases where the Court is satisfied that a bona fide mistake has been made.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is important that this Amendment should have been made. The House will remember that on the Report stage there was a considerable discussion on the merits of the Clause, and that the Opposition felt so strongly about it that they divided. The insertion of this Amendment, therefore, does something to remedy the objections which we then entertained, because it makes it clear now that it is an error or omission which is due to a bona fide mistake. Under the Clause as it originally stood, any error, no matter how important or whether it had been made by design on the part of the landlord and whether he had benefited by it, might have been cured by the action of the Court. This makes it clear that only in the case of a bona fide mistake will the Court come to the assistance of the landlord, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to this change.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "therein" ["any omissions therein"], insert
which, if not corrected or supplied, would render the notice invalid.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is clearly covering very much the same ground as the last Amendment, and is intended to have the same effect.

CLAUSE 6.—(Permitted increases of rent of sub-tenancies.)

(1) Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies then in addition to any increases permitted by paragraphs (a) to (e) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act, an amount not exceeding ten per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of that dwelling house, and an amount equivalent to five per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of the dwelling-house comprised in the tenancy.

(2) The tenant who has so sub-let part of any such dwelling-house shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him, within fourteen days thereafter, with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particulars of occupancy, including the rent charged, and should he without reasonable excuse fail to do so or supply a statement which is false in any material particulars he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.

Lords Amendment:

At end of Sub-section (1), insert
Sub-section (2) of Section three of the principal Act shall not apply as respects any increase permitted under this Subsection.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is one of the Amendments that were mentioned in the Debate on the Motion, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," and I think I need only confirm what was then stated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), that it is not correct to say that, if this Amendment is inserted, the tenant will not have to give any notice of increase at all to his sub-tenant. He will still have to give the ordinary notice of increase, but he will not have to give a notice of increase in the very complicated and difficult form provided in the Schedule to the original Act. It hardly seems worth while to make a cumbrous addition to the Schedule in order to cover this particular case.

Mr. FOOT: I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty in which some of us are on this side of the House. These Lords Amendments were placed in our hands only this morning, and the right hon. Gentleman says, in defending this substantial alteration, as I submit it is, that some notice will still be required. I should be glad if he could refer me to anything in the principal Act that would show that some notice would still have to be given by the tenant to his sub-tenant. I have referred to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act, which is the Sub-section making it necessary that, upon any permitted increase being demanded, notice shall be given. I should certainly not divide against this Amendment if I could be satisfied upon one or two points. First of all. where in the principal Act is it provided that notice would have to be given of this 10 per cent. increase? Secondly, what form would that notice have to take? Could it be, for instance simply a verbal notice, or must it be a notice in writing? And, what is still more important, how soon can the tenant obtain from the sub-tenant this 10 per cent. increase? In the Sub-section of the principal Act which it is now proposed to eliminate, provision was made that four weeks' notice had to be given in the case of the ordinary increase of rent—per cent. or 25 per cent.—and one week's notice in respect of an increase of rates. That is to say, the landlord could not demand the increase immediately, but had to give four weeks' notice in the case of an increase of rent, and one week's notice in the case of an increase of rates. If that be done away with, are we now to understand that a tenant demanding an increase from his sub-tenant can get it immediately? Can he go to him on Tuesday of next week, immediately after the Act comes into operation, and say,"I am entitled to a 10 per cent. increase, and that 10 per cent. increase shall be payable immediately"?
The safeguard was contained in the Sub-section which it is now proposed to strike out, and in the other House there was practically no discussion on this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's representative in the other House simply introduced it, and it was agreed to without any comment or discussion. I submit that
it is an important Amendment, which demands some further explanation, and I shall certainly be inclined to vote against this proposal unless I can be satisfied on the three points about which I have asked, namely, what notice can now be required under the principal Act; is that notice to be verbal or in writing—if it can simply be a verbal notice, it will give rise to all sorts of difficulties; and, thirdly, seeing that this Sub-section, inserted in the principal Act for the protection of the tenant, is now to be struck out, can the increase be demanded immediately? I think the sub-tenant who is now to be called upon to pay this 10 per cent. increase is entitled, at any rate, to some breathing space, so that he may make provision for the increased payment. If the Measure goes through in such a form as to enable the tenant who is also the landlord of a sub-tenant to go to him and demand that substantial increase immediately, there will be a considerable outcry against a Measure that is giving occasion already for sufficient disturbance and unpopularity.

Mr. HARNEY: I have been endeavouring, in my own confused way, to try and understand this matter, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to follow me in my observations. The Amendment is to insert, at the end of Sub-section (1), the words
Sub-section (2) of Section three of the principal Act shall not apply as respects any increase permitted under this Sub-section.
Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 of this Bill provides that
Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies,
the tenant shall be entitled to increase the rent of the sub-tenant by 10 per cent., and the landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of the tenant by 5 per cent. in respect of each sub-tenancy. These are new increases in rent which have to be provided for. Am I wrong in saying that the intention of this Amendment is that whatever Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act says shall not be applicable to this new increase? I think I am right. Now, Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act, dealing with certain increases provided for in that Act, says:
Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, where the rent of any dwelling-
house to which this Act applies is increased, no such increase shall be due or recoverable until or in respect of any period prior to the expiry of four clear weeks, or, where such increase is on account of an increase in rates, one clear week, after the landlord has served upon the tenant a valid notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent, which notice shall he in the form contained in the first Schedule to this Act or in a form substantially to the same effect.
I have been found to be wrong so often that I want to be quite clear as I go on. Am I right in saying that Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act provides that the increases of rent there provided for shall not be made unless four weeks' notice be given to the tenant? And am I also right in saying that the increase of rent permitted by this Bill can be made without complying with that provision requiring notice to be given to the tenant? If that be so, is not my hon. Friend perfectly justified in saying that the effect of this Amendment is to dispense with the necessity of giving notice in the case of these new increases of 10 per cent. and 5 per cent.; and, if that be so, what is the justification for giving this privilege to the landlord in respect of these new increases of rent which was denied to the landlord in reference to the previous increases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will first answer the points put to me by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). He asks where in the principal Act is there anything that provides that notice must be given to the sub-tenant of the increase under this Clause? I would refer the hon. Member to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the principal Act, which says
Nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise any increase in rent except in respect of a period during which but for this Act the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession.
Therefore, as he would have to give to his tenant the ordinary notice to determine his tenancy before he could raise the rent, that would still apply, and that is the notice he will have to give, instead of the notice provided in Sub-section (2) of the same Section.

Mr. FOOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Section 3 (1) requires the landlord to give that notice in demanding an increase of rent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. FOOT: Then will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the other points that I put to him, namely, is that notice to be in writing, or may it be verbal; and can the increase be demanded forthwith, or must four weeks' notice be given, as in the case of the other permitted increases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand the Sub-section, what he would have to do would be to give the tenant notice to quit.

Mr. FOOT: Therefore, it can be a week's notice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It can be a week's notice. The form the notice would take would be that form, and not the form specified in Sub-section (2). That, I think, answers the hon. Member's second point. His third point is whether the term would be reduced from four weeks to one week? I understand that that would be so.

Mr. FOOT: The notice will be reduced from four weeks to one week; and, seeing that the notice to quit may be verbal, may I ask whether this may also be verbal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The effect would be that the tenant will have one week's notice. It does not matter very much what the form is, so long as he knows how much time he has got.

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think that this matter is sufficiently clear even now. It is very interesting that the right hon. Gentleman has based his case upon Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the principal Act. This is the Section which gave rise to the Kerr v. Bride decision. It was in connection with this Section that it became necessary to pass further legislation in this House, and an Act was passed earlier this Session which dispensed with the notice to quit both before and after the passing of that Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the principal Act, there-, fore, does not necessarily now apply. The notice given under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 was all that was required, but if this present Measure says that that Sub-section shall not apply in this case, what is the position going to be, supposing that no notice is given at all? I think the House is placing itself in a
position of some difficulty. I do not see that it is necessary to go so far as to repeal the whole of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act. The needs of the case might have been met by saying that notice in a particular form was not necessary under Sub-section (1) of that Section, but that the minimum period of notice laid down in Sub-section (2) should apply. In view of the fact that this Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the prin-

cipal Act has given rise to difficulty, and in view of what has already happened, I think some difficulty must arise out of the Amendment to which the House is now being asked to agree.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 130.

Division No. 342.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Frederick George


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Goff, Sir R. Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Perring, William George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Peto, Basil E.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Philipson, Mabel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pielou, D. P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Privett, F. J.


Banks, Mitchell
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D. by)
Raine, W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Halstead, Major D.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Barnston, Major Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Becker, Harry
Harrison, F. C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Berry, Sir George
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Betterton, Henry B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reamer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Rhodes, Lieut-Col. J. P.


Brass, Captain W.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Briggs, Harold
Hogg, Re. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Bruford, R.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bruton, Sir James
Houlton, John Plowright
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hughes, Collingwood
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hume, G. H.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cassels, J. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Instep, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Singleton, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Skelton, A. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kennedy, Captain M S. Nigel
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Clayton, G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cope, Major William
Lorden, John William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Wells, S. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Mercer, Colonel H.
White, Lt. Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Winterton, Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morris, Harold
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C.(Honiton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Whington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L., (Exeter)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Flanagan, W. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh



Ford, Patrick Johnston
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs and Coptain Douglas King.


Furness, G. J.
Pease, William Edwin



Ganzoni, Sir John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Garland, C. S.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Ammon, Charles George
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Attlee, C. R.
Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Richards, R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hill, A.
Riley, Ben


Bonwick, A.
Hinds, John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bowdier, W. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Saklatvala, S.


Buckle, J.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Salter, Dr. A.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jawett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simpson, J. Hope


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jawitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Collison, Levi
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Leach, W.
Sturrock, J. Long


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, C.
Linfield, F. C.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Turner, Ben


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Entee, V. L.
Warne, G. H.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Falconer, J.
March, S.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Whiteley, W.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Middleton, G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morel, E. D.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Muir, John W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)



Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parker, H. (Hanley)



Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "The tenant who has so sub-let," and insert "Where."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment must be taken with the three following Amendments, which are consequential upon it, and the purpose of it is this. As drafted, the Bill applies only in the case of a tenant who has himself sub-let some of his rooms. It is quite possibly, in a case where a tenant has succeeded another tenant, the other tenant who sub-let the rooms. In that case the Bill as drafted would not apply to him and the object of the Amendment is to make it apply.

Captain BENN: This is another Amendment in the landlord's interest. A number of Amendments have been in the landlord's interest, and I simply make
this observation. This is an Amendment which will extend the power of imposing the increase of 10 per cent.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2): After the word "dwelling-house" ["any such dwelling-house"] insert "is so sublet the tenant."

Leave out the words "of the dwelling-house."

Leave out the word "he" ["and should he without"] and insert "the tenant."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 6 insert

NEW CLAUSE C.—(Limitation on recovery of over-payments or arrears.)

(1) No increase of rent which becomes payable by reason of an Amendment of a notice of increase made by order of the County Court under this Act shall be
recoverable in respect of any rental period which ended more than six months before the date of the order.

(2) Any sum paid by a tenant or mortgagor which, under Sub-section (1) of Section fourteen of the principal Act, is recoverable by the tenant or mortgagor shall be recoverable at any time within six months from the date of payment but not afterwards, or in the case of a payment made before the passing of this Act, at any time within six months from the passing of this Act but not afterwards.

(3) Nothing in this Section shall affect the operation of the Rent Restriction (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.'
This is a new Clause upon which comment has already been made. It carries out what I think was very much desired by some hon. Members, namely, that you should not have the possibility of an attempt at recovering sums which are irrecoverable under the Bill for an indefinite period. It limits, therefore, the time within which the arrears can be recovered to six months, and the first Sub-section deals particularly with Clause 5 of the Bill whereas the second Sub-section is general in character. I think, in view of what was said on Report and Third Reading, hon. Members opposite will accept it.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I think the House will welcome the Amendment in substance, but I want to ask a question. I am not quite clear about the wording. I ought to explain that I am not a lawyer and consequently I have to bring a lay mind to bear on the subject. I wonder what does rental period mean? Would it mean that, taking the last six months, if a 12 months' rental period ended in the last six months the retrospection in this case would be 18 months and not six months? If the answer is in the affirmative this retrospection clearly can go very much beyond the six months. In fact, it could go over two or three years. You might have a rental period of, say, 12 months or two years, and it would not be a six months' retrospection.

Mr. FOOT: I listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He referred to the limitation put upon the retrospective action of Section 5. I think he should be thanked for having secured that alteration in the
other House, although he will perhaps remember that we could not persuade him here in the course of the Report stage to consider that Amendment to be necessary. I tried to put before him then the consideration that, whilst we were to have retrospection it was most. unfortunate that we should have it for practically an unlimited period, and the right hon. Gentleman's answer was that we could rely on the good sense of the County Court. I think he was inclined to weigh our objection very lightly. I was hoping he would be able to explain this evening what argument it was that influenced him in the interval since the Bill passed through the Report stage here. No criticism was brought to bear upon it in the other House. After the Third Reading there had been some little time for reconsideration, and he had been able to see the reasonableness of the arguments used on this side of the House, which had not been quite apparent at the time they were used. But it is the second part of the Amendment I should like to have some information upon. When this was dealt with in the Lords and this substantial change was made, that is, the change that limits the right of the tenant who has improperly paid an amount, it may be illegally demanded, to the period of six months there was again no request for that change. It was not discussed in the other place. Et was an Amendment introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health at no one's request apparently, as the result of no criticism, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain why it was that this substantial change should have been effected in another place and not introduced here. Surely this was the place where we should first have had the opportunity of considering the wisdom of this Amendment. After all some argument is needed to justify it. Here is a landlord, we will assume, who has demanded improperly from the tenant some amount which the tenant ought not to have paid. According to all the ordinary tests, that tenant ought to be able to recover from his landlord what he never should have paid and what the landlord should never have demanded. Although the landlord has improperly demanded and the tenant, who may have had to pinch himself to meet this im-
proper demand, has made the payment, yet the landlord is limited as far as his liability is concerned and the tenant is deprived of his ordinary legal remedy. If two ordinary citizens have a claim against each other, you cannot limit the claim simply to the last six months; but in the case of a tenant he is only to be able to go back six months. Why should we say to the tenant that he should only be able to go back six months, when any ordinary citizen having a claim against any other member of the community can go back for the whole period of six years? It may be that there is some reason for this Amendment, but no reason for it has been advanced this afternoon, and no reason was advanced in the other place. Seeing that we are asked to agree to what is a fundamental alteration in the Bill, I hope that some reason will be advanced.

Mr. HARNEY: Under the Rents (Notice of Increase) Act, 1923, the tenant was precluded from recovering moneys paid by him for a further period back than the 1st December, 1922. The reason given for that was that you were making an inroad upon the ordinary law, under which moneys overpaid could be recovered for six years, because a special feature attached to the 1st December as being a date subsequent to the time when a speech of the Prime Minister gave notice of the position. A special reason had to be given for limiting the period over which ordinary arrears could be recovered under that Act. Now we find the same thing imported into this Bill, and we are told that, apart from the special ground upon which the tenant's right to recover w as limited by the Rents (Notice of Increase) Act, he shall also be limited under this Bill, for what reason I do not know. If I have overpaid my butcher for the last six years and I discover it, I can recover the money from him. If I have overpaid my landlord and I am a poor tenant, I cannot recover from him further back than six months. I do not see any reason for that distinction, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain the matter.

Mr. HARRIS: This Amendment will be regarded with some concern in the East End of London. There is such a shortage of accommodation and people are in such
a desperate condition that they are ready to pay almost any rent to get accommodation. There is reason to believe that a large amount of key money is being paid and other bribes are being paid in order to get accommodation. If it gets about that the Government is weakening on the question of increase of rent, and if by some means or other the landlords have taken advantage of the house shortage and the needs of the tenant and it becomes known that the tenants will not be able to recover the extra rent which should not have been charged, after six months, it may cause very serious disquietude in the East End of London.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) put a question about the meaning of the words, "rental period." The point is that you can only go back six months in the recovery of sums which ought never to have been charged. Therefore, if during the period preceding that six months the tenant had paid less than he ought to have done the landlord cannot recover from him the difference. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), he says that I have done what he asked me to do on the Report stage or on the Third Reading. He remembers that I said then that I thought it would be quite safe to trust to the good sense of the Courts to see that the landlords were not allowed to go back beyond a certain reasonable time. I still think so. I think the Courts could be depended upon to do what is fair and reasonable, but in my anxiety to meet the fears which had been expressed by the hon. Member and others, when an Amendment was put before the Government in another place to deal with this particular point, I was not unwilling to accept it.

Mr. FOOT: The Amendment was proposed by the Government in the other place.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was proposed on the representation of others, and we had to put it in proper form. Amendments are sometimes put by hon. Members opposite, but not always in the form which one can accept, for some reason or other, but we accept the principle and then we have to find a better drafting.
I do not know why the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) thinks that this will cause disquietude in the East End of London. There is no reason why it should give rise to any anxiety or to the idea that the Government is weakening upon the question of increase of rent. I am not sure that I have gathered what he meant by our weakening in regard to increase of rent. This has nothing to do with increase of rent, but merely deals with cases where the wrong amount has been charged—it may be too much or it may be too little. It is limited on both sides. You cannot go back more than a certain time to recover arrears, and surely it is only reasonable to put in a similar limit on the other side.

Mr. HARRIS: There is a house famine and we are in a desperate position. That is the difficulty. Tenants are ready to pay almost any price for accommodation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is not a new idea. It goes back to the Courts Emergency Act, 1917. I had that Act before me when I considered this Clause, and if hon. Members will refer to Section 5 of that Act they will find a very similar provision there. I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument about the shortage of houses. That is not the question here. The question is not what increase of rent should be allowed, but what arrears of rent can be recovered if there has been a mistake in the amount which has been charged.

Captain BENN: I do not quite understand the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Westhoughton. We were under the impression that these arrears were only to be collected in so far as they were arrears for the preceding six months, but when you read the form of the Amendment it says
In respect of any rental period which ended more than six months before the date of the Order.
The rental period may be six months or 12 months. It would appear that under this Amendment, so far from limiting the collection of arrears to the six months' period, it only limits it to the rental period terminating six months before the date of the Order. Therefore it may be possible for a landlord to go to Court and to get arrears of rent
spreading over a period of 18 months before the application. I know that that is not the intention of the Ministry, and if necessary we ought to alter the words in such a way as to show that the period for which these increases were permitted to be collected was to be a six months' period, and no more.

Mr. PRINGLE: This Amendment is not quite so innocent or so advantageous as the right hon. Gentlemen suggested when he addressed the House upon it. There are two things brought together in the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this Amendment was mainly concerned with cases where the Court had corrected the notice of increase, and that in these cases where the Amendment has been made on the notice of increase, the period in which the increase could be recovered was limited to six months. As the hon. Member for Westhoughton and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) have said, the period over which the increase may be recovered may be much greater than six months. Take a very frequent term of letting, namely, three months. You may have the three months terminating inside the six months, and, therefore, it would be possible to recover to the extent of nine months under Sub-section (1). That is a case that would very frequently arise, especially in regard to the higher rented houses, which come within the principal Act.
Sub-section (2) deals with a matter which is totally different. It deals with the case where money was made recoverable under the principal Act. There, if any premium was charged or any consideration whatever was given in connection with the giving up of a house, that money under the principal Act was recoverable at any time. It is in this connection that the point raised by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green deserves attention. If such an illegal payment is only recoverable within six months, the landlord has a much greater inducement to make such a charge, in the hope that the six months may pass before the tenant will endeavour to recover the money. He will know that under Subsection (2) of this new Clause, if six months passes, the tenant has no chance of recovery. He will, therefore, make the charge in the hope that the tenant will
stay in occupation for six months, and if he is in occupation during the whole of the six months, no attempt will be made to recover. After the period of six months has elapsed, the landlord will be in full possession of the money which he has illegally obtained. I think a mistake has been made in limiting the period within which the money can be recovered in these circumstances, and that the limitation of the period is a direct encouragement to those who have houses to let to insist on these illegal payments, because they will have a better opportunity of retaining them. It is unfortunate that the two things have been coupled. In respect of Sub-section (1), I think the period should be extended much beyond six months.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that at first I fully apprehended the meaning of the question put to me by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, but I understand it now. Where the rental period is a short one, obviously no hardship arises. The case which the hon. Member has in mind is where the rental period is a long one, and where it ends within the six months, and he suggests that the arrears may be recovered for that longer rental period because it ended within the six months. I think that is correct, but I would remind the hon. Member that the whole thing is covered by the provisions of Clause 5, which give the Court power to amend these arrears and supply any omissions
on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable.
So there is protection given by these words to the person whose rental period -comes within the six months.

CLAUSE 7.—(Excesive charges for furniture, etc., taken over in connection with tenancies.)

(1) Where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium required to be
paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance, and the provisions of section eight of the principal Act, including penal provisions, shall apply accordingly.

(2) Where a tenant who by virtue of the principal Act retains possession of a dwelling-house to which that Act applies requires that furniture or other articles shall be purchased as a condition of giving up possession, the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles the excess shall be treated as a sum asked to be paid as a condition of giving up possession, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fifteen of the principal Act (including penal provisions) shall apply accordingly.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["Act applies, the price demanded shall"], insert
at the request of the person on whom the demand is made.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
8.0 P.M.
An Amendment was inserted in Committee in this Clause of the Bill providing
that the price of the furniture should be stated in writing. It does seem that that is going to be rather unnecessary. The landlord is negotiating with the tenant for a tenancy, and wishes to include a bargain about furniture. The tenant may be ready to make a bargain, and may not require to have the thing stated in writing as he is satisfied with the price. So long as this gives him power to demand that the price shall be stated in writing, if he requires it, that is all that he need ask for. In the second Amendment which follows, to leave out the word "such" and insert the word "the," if "such" is left in, that would apply only to written prices, and then there would be no compulsion for this Clause to apply at all.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am very sorry that the Minister is allowing the House of Lords to alter completely the intention of the spirit of this Clause. During the Report stage, I moved this Amendment, which was accepted by the Minister as he thought that it was reasonable. We know from information which has come within our knowledge that there are speculators in houses and gamblers in houses, exactly as there are gamblers on the Stock Exchange. They have purchased a great
many houses or flats in recent times. This alteration will mean that if you have a landlord who owns perhaps 100 flats or 100 houses, you will be imposing these conditions, before granting a renewal of a tenancy or a lease of a house, on the 100 tenants. Whereas the object of the previous Clause was to put the onus on the owner to state in writing the charge that he was going to make for furniture or other articles, by this alteration you are going to put the onus on the 100 people to make that request. There is a vast difference between the original Clause and this Clause. The result will be that if the landlord tells me to-night that he wants to charge so much for the furniture or for some other article or to put a premium on the key, and to-morrow I make a request that he shall put the price down in writing, he will say. "I have got another application from somebody else," and I am immediately thrown over, whereas in making a bargain with me under my Amendment he would be compelled to put down the price in writing in the first instance and he could not get out of it. I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment but will retain the Clause in its original form.

Mr. DAVIES: This is one of the most objectionable Amendments which have been sent down from the House of Lords. Neither the Minister nor anyone in another place gave any valid reason for inserting these words. I fail to understand why a man who enters into an agreement to take a tenancy of a house, in respect of which furniture is part of the contract, should ask for the price of the furniture in writing. In my view the price of the furniture should he stated to him without his having to make a demand that it should be stated. I presume that in another place they were thinking of the old adage that the Englishman's word is his bond, but I would remind the Minister that all property-owners are not Englishmen. Some are Welshmen and some are Scotsmen. I would also remind him that every English property-owner is not an angel. These words ought to be deleted. When a shopkeeper sells goods he states in writing the price of what he sells. If you are sufficiently well off to have a bank account, the balance to your credit is stated in writing. At the next General Election the Minister will not require
to make a demand in writing as to what the result of the election is. He will get it without making such a demand. The price of the furniture should be stated in writing without any request from the tenant. I cannot understand why those who urge the acceptance of this Amendment should not give any reason for inserting these words. We view the matter in such a serious light that we propose to divide the House on the subject. I trust that the Minister will give us a little more explanation if he cannot accept the Clause as it left this House.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The Minister accepted very few Amendments in connection with this Bill, and in this case the other House has eliminated one of the Amendments which were accepted here. This Amendment is essentially one to protect the tenant. I can conceive that those in another place are not intimately acquainted with the letting and sub-letting of houses. Though on the face of it this Amendment seems innocent, it may seem unreasonable to ask that this should be put in writing without a request from the tenant, yet I would remind the Minister of the abuse which arose over key money, and that after key money was made difficult, if not illegal, then similar abuses continued and exorbitant prices were asked for fictitious furniture, and the poorest of the poor were robbed in a great many cases. This was put in to protect these people. Though they may have their legal protection, they are not fully acquainted with Acts of Parliament and they will not know that they have it in their power to request the owner to put the price in writing. We should protect them to the extent of insisting that they should have this put before them in writing. I would ask the Minister whether he will not reconsider the matter and join with us in resisting the Amendment.

Mr. SHINWELL: I desire to support my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). If this Amendment is accepted it will destroy the efficiency of the Clause, but the Cluase will be inoperative, unless it remains in the state in which it left this House. In the circumstances which will arise in a tenancy of this kind and the contracts which will be entered into between those who will desire a tenancy, which will include furniture, and those
who wish to avails themselves of the tenancy, there is no possibility of the tenant demanding as a condition of the tenancy that the price of the furniture shall be stated in writing. The Clause as it left the House expressly implies that the furniture forms part of the factual tenancy, and if chat be so, I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should seek to make a distinction between one part of the tenancy and another. If it is desirable that in the case of the

house itself the factual price at which it is let should be stated in writing, I cannot understand why the Brice of the other part of the tenancy, which is the furniture, should not be stated in writing. I submit, having regard to these facts, that the right hon. Gentleman should decline to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 133.

Division No. 343.]
AYES.
[8.13 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Flanagan, W. H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Furness, G. J.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Garland, C. S.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.


Barnston, Major Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Becker, Harry
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Berry, Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Walter
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Betterton, Henry B.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gretton, Colonel John
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pease, William Edwin


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Rr-Adml.Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W. D'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Briggs, Harold
Halstead, Major D.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Gilliam George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Harrison, F. C.
Peto, Basil E.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Phillips, Mabel


Bruford, R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pielou, D. P.


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Privet, F. J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Raine, W.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Cassels, J. D.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Romer, J. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Houfton, John Plowright
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rhodes, Lieut-Col. J. P.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hughes, Collingwood
Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, G. H.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cope, Major William
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Singleton, J. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Lord


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, Coal, M. J. (Richmond)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Tubbs, S. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Winterton, Earl



Wells, S. R.
Wise, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Captain Hacking and Major Hennessy.


Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wolmer, Viscount



Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)



White, Lt. Col. G. D. (Southport)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Phillipps, Vivian


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Attlee, C. R.
Hayday, Arthur
Richards, R.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Riley, Ben


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hill, A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bonwick, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowdler, W. A.
Hinds, John
Salter, Dr. A.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Buckle, J.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chapple, W. A.
Irving, Dan
Simpson, J. Hope


Clarke, Sir E. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clynes, Rt.-Hon. John R.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Snell, Harry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Collison, Levi
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sullivan, J.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Turner, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Linfield, F. C.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ede, James Chuter
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacLean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Welsh, J. C.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Falconer, J.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Whiteley, W.


Foot, Isaac
Middleton, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Morel, E. D.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)



Hardie, George D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

It being after a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Sanding Order No. 8, farther Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (SEASALTER AND HAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and tat the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Before sating the reasons for moving the rejection of the Bill, I should like to give the House a brief outline of the Measure. This Bill proposes to confer on a private limited liability company, called the Seasalter and Ham Oyster Fishery Company, of Whitstable, what is known as a several right. That is to say, an exclusive right of fishing a certain part of the fishing grounds in the Estuary of the Thames. The area which it is proposed under this Bill to give to this private company is about 730 acres, roughly one square mile, which lies off
the North-East Coast of the Isles of Sheppey. An importance point for the Douse to note is the length of the period for which this exclusive right is to be given, and which is no less than 60 years. It is quire, understandable chat this concession of the fishing rights over one square mile of fishing ground is a very valuable thing indeed. The capitalised value of it over a long period like 30 years would naturally be represented by a very larger sum of money. That being so, it may seem all the more strange that this private company, which is now asking the House to give it this concession, is going to pay nothing whatever for the concession. There is a more important point even than that, and that is that no compensation whatever is to be paid to those individuals who, up to now, have enjoyed an immemorial right of fishing in these particular waters. In fact, as I shall show shortly, there are several men and their wives and families who depend for their livelihood on the fish caught in the particular waters of which this area forms part.
It may be asked, How comes it that it is possible for a private company to acquire a right of this kind? It is under an Act called the Sea Fisheries Act, passed in 1868. It happens to be a very long Act, and I certainly would not recommend any hon. Member of this House to spend too much time beading it. The first half of the Act is concerned with treaty fisheries with the Emperor of the French, but it is under the second part of the Act that Orders, such as this, may be given. Under Section 34 of the Act, a private company may apply to the Board of Trade, whose powers have since been transferred to "the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, for an Order such as this. If they are able to persuade the Ministry to grant them an Order under Section 34, a Bill is introduced, and proceeded with. I should like to Jake quite clear to the Douse that there is no compulsion or obligation on the Ministry to grant a private company this particular Order. The Section leaves it perfectly open to the Ministry to reject an Order if they will. If an Order has been granted, as is the case in this instance, then a private Bill is introduced into the Douse, with this
difference, that whereat a Provisional Order has been granted in the first instance by a Government Department, this private Bill comes under the wing of the Government Department during its passage through Parliament.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries held two inquiries before they granted the Order. The first was held at Whitstable and the second at Tones-bury, in Essex. Tollesbury happens to be in my constituency, and I attended the inquiry held there. I listened to the evidence with the closest attention and with a true desire to try and arrive at the rights of this case. I am bound to say that from the sworn evidence which was given at that inquiry at Tollesbury, I am absolutely convinced that the granting of this Order, if passed into an Act of Parliaments, would be inflicting a grievous hardship on a great number of people whose livelihood now depends on the fisheries in question. To show what interest has been aroused among the people affected I may say that practically the whole population of Tollesbury attended that inquiry and protested against the putting into force of this Order. It is very small wonder that such should be the case. These fishermen halve sunk all their savings in the purchase of fishing smacks. They have smacks of a larger type than those usually engaged in fishing, the smaller estuaries on the coast of Essex, and they have built these larger smacks specially in order to sail down the coast of Essex to reach these very waters in the estuary of the Thames. Not only have they from boyhood fished these waters, but it was proved in evidenced that their fathers and forefathers had fished these waters from time immemorial. It is necessary to show the Douse what a valuable form of fishing this is. I should explain, in the first instance, that it takes the form of dredging, and the catches consist chiefly of oysters and mussels and starfish. The starfish is known locally as "five fingers," and the catching of "five fingers" forms one of the most valuable parts of this industry. No less than 30 to 40 tons have been caught by one boat in one month, and no less than £500 worth of fish has been taken by the Tollesbury fishing fleet in the course of one excursion to these waters.
There are about 50 smacks in the fleet, each of which employs three or four men, and it is computed that during the fishing season employment is given to no fewer thank 200 men for several months in this particular fishing industry in the estuary of the Thames. The company who are asking the Douse to grant them this order claim that they will give more employment, but that claim does not hold water for a moment. It is computed that were the scheduled area to come under the complete control of the company, they would not be able to give employment to one-tenth of the number of fishermen who now earn their livlihood on this piece of water. As a matter of fact, they are not able at the present moment to give employment to their ordinary complement of men on the beds which they possess. Already they are in possession of a considerable area of the estuary used as oyster beds and the fact is, that to-day they have got more beds—that, is more ground—than they are able to cover with their oyster spat, for the reason that of hate there has been a shortage off oyster spat, all over Europe. The true fact is not that there is a shortage of ground but that there is a shortage of oyster or oyster spat. The company claim that if they are given this grant, it will reduce competition from abroad, but it is strange that already they are purchasing, from abroad, young oyster spat to put on the beds they already possess from which are eventually grown the far-famed Whitstable natives. I should explain that the grant will not in any way increase the amount of available oyster spat, because the company already is one of the chief buyers of oyster spat from the fishermen who fish on this ground and therefore there can be no contention that the company will be able to increase the supply of spat to the extent of one oyster per year if they are granted this privilege. The only difference will be that whereas the company now have to pay the fishermen for the oyster spat dredged on this ground, in future this fortunate company would be able to get it for nothing if they secured this grant.
Apart from this, it was proved at the inquiry that the ground which it is proposed to schedule is of special value to the fishermen for -two very important reasons. First, it lies in-shore and well up the estuary and there are a great many days in the fishing season during which
it is impassible, owing to rough weather, for the smacks to fish further out in the mouth of the estuary and, very often, in rough weather practically the whole of the smacks which fish the estuary of the Thames are to be seen at one time crowded on to the piece of water which it is now proposed to give over to this company. Another reason why the ground is of particular value to the Tollesbury fishermen in particular is that, quite by chance, it happens to be a favoured resort of the starfish or "five fingers." The starfish, admittedly, is an enemy of the oyster, and the company claim that they would cleanse the ground of this enemy of the oyster, but it is obvious that the fishermen are doing that very thng now. They catch the starfish on this ground which lies in close proximity to the oyster beds and, to that extent, the company are profiting by having the neighbouring ground cleansed of the vermin which might otherwise trespass on their own ground. Regarding the starfish, it may be surprising to some Members of the House to learn that the starfish should be a creature of any value whatever. As a matter of fact, for agricultural purposes, it has a very high value indeed as a manure. It contains a very high percentage of nitrogen and phosphates, and it is readily bought by farmers whenever they are able to get hold of it.
A special convenience attaches to this trader in the estuary of the Thames. The coast line of Essex is broken by a great number of estuaries and small creeks, and when a catch of starfish has been made, they are taken by the smacks up these creeks to small landing laces, transferred direct from the smack into the farmer's waggon, and thus go straight on to the farm. It can readily be understood that, by the elimination of all intermediate transport charges, the farmer is able to get at a reasonably chap rate one of the most valuable manures he can possibly buy. Such importance do the farmers of Essex attach to this trade that they have protested through their branch of the National Farmers' Union to the Ministry against this Order being put into force. Among other claims the company state that they will, if granted this. Order, do a great deal to increase the food supply of the people by increasing the supply of oysters. I ask the Douse, is the oyster, or has it ever been, a food of the people? Fond as I am myself of the
oyster, unfortunately it is usually far beyond the limits of my purse, and I would probably not be far wrong if I said that it is often beyond the limits of the purses of a great number of Members of Parliament. It is, as the Douse knows quite well, a luxury food. On the other hand, by the trade which I have just described, a most valuable manure is made readily available and accessible for the great corn-growing lands of Essex, lands which do now and which always have produced a great deal of food for the population off this great City of London. I do not think, in these circumstances, the claim put forward by the company as to increasing the food supply can be seriously maintained. I quite understand the position of the Ministry in this matter. Having, in the first instance, granted the Order they probably do not like to rescind it, and it may not be unfair to suggest that, in this case, the zeal of the Fisheries Department of the Ministry for oysters has outweighed the customary care of the Agricultural Department of the Ministry for the consumer and his food supply. The issue, however, really lies much deeper thank that. The broad issue is that a limited company desire toe acquire a very valuable concession from the Crown for nothing, at the expense of the immemorial rights of a large number of individuals who, as fishermen, are struggling hard to earn a living for themselves, their wives, and families.
Both sides present cases of private enterprise. Both sides, in their different ways, are capitalists. On the one hand, you have a powerful corporation, and on the other you have humble individuals who own fishing smacks. Happily, in this matter, the last word rests with this Douse. This Douse now has not only the opportunity, but the responsibility of deciding between these two interests. I submit that the Douse ought not to be asked to consent to what I can only say is a flagrant case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and I need hardly remind the House that Peter was a humble fisherman, and Paul was a man of considerable private fortune. I submit that this Douse should show, by a most decisive vote, that it is determined to safeguard the rights and interests of all classes of individuals. I leave the issue to the
House with perfect confidence, believing that no hon. Member would ever again eat an oysters, either with enjoyment or with a clear conscience, or, I hope, with a good digestion, if he realised that he was enjoying the luxury of the oyster at the expense of taking the bread out of the moths of these fisherfolk and their families.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
In so doing I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise) on the excellent presentation of his case, and at the same time the Tollesbury fishermen on the able advocate they have found in this Douse. I have no constituents who are interested in this question at all, but I happened on a recent occasion to be speaking at Whitstable, and I found there a deputation consisting of nearly the entire population of Whitstable protesting against this very same measure. On going into the case, it struck me that a real act of gross injustice was being done, probably without the Ministry of Agriculture or the Government knowing anything about it. I believe that our case is so strong that it has only to be stated in this House to receive the support of hon. Members on both sides, and my only doubt in getting up to support the case is whether support from this side may not weaken unjustifiably the support that it should claim from hon. Members opposite.
The case is as stated by the hon. and gallant Member. The Government by this Bill propose to hand over, for 60 years, to a company already in possession of large foreshore rights, a further sole right over another square mile of sea. In doing that, they are depriving certain people of their livelihood, and when you deprive people of their livelihood it has hitherto been the practice, even of Government Departments, to see that those people are compensated for their loss of livelihood, but in this particular case I cannot understand why the concession has been made at all, because this valuable concession has been granted for 60 years without any rent or royalty whatsoever, and merely by the action of the Government a square mile of fishing ground is transferred from a lot of small proprietors to this company, which is
already in possession of a partial monopoly. I am quite certain that the Government, when they state their case, will say that by enclosing the sea in this way, by preventing wild fishermen from fishing on these particular banks, they will be able to secure better cultivation of the oyster on these banks, and that therefore the production of oysters will increase, and the general good of the public will be better served by the monopoly conservation and development than it would be by general commons fishing by any man who chose to fish.
That argument has been used, of course, to justify in past times every enclosure of commons throughout Great Britain. It was always said in exactly the same way, and with the same modicum of truth about it, that unless you allowed individual proprietorship over the commons, you could not expect to get the best production from those commons, and that, therefore, in the interests of the public, it would be as well to allow those commons to be enclosed. Those grounds were held to be sufficient for generations in this House. I do not quite know whether they would be held sufficient to-day, but even in those days, when it was held justifiable to enclose commons in the interests of the public, the act of enclosure always specifically stated that compensation was to be paid to the existing commoners on that land. There was never any hesitation in setting apart a part of the land enclosed to compensate those who were being deprived of their right of commonage. I do not pretend to say that that compensation was ever really sufficient for the loss of free commonage, but the compensation was there, and it was there because past Douses of Commons realised that they were not justified in depriving men of a right without seeing that they were compensated for the loss of that right. That principle, for some unknown reason, has not been applied to this case of the enclosure of the sea. I am against enclosure of the sea, just as I should be against enclosure of the commons, but let that pass. What I want hon. Members opposite to agree with me is that if that, enclosure is to take place the fishermen whoa lose their livelihood have as much right to compensation as any commoner on any common which has been enclosed in the last 200 years.
That being so, I cannot believe that a Conservative Government, which sets an
almost inordinate value on the rights of property, will deliberately sacrifice these small property owners and thereby set a precedent which would be of grave disadvantage to property owners throughout the country. I must say that when I found what this Bill was, I wondered that there had not been other hon. Members opposite to stand out for the rights of these small fishermen. I think Bills like this go through only too often, partly because Members do not take the trouble to read them and partly because what is everybody's business is nobody's business. But if hon. Member opposite had studied this Bill, I am certain they would have seen, with me and the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon, that here was a real act of injustice being perpetrated which the Douse of Commons could not really permit. I may add that the General Workers' Union, amongst whose members are found several of these fishermen, are also interested in this matter, and have been helping the opposition that has been put up. I am convinced that the Labour party is solid on the matter, but while we cannot carry anything in this Douse, I would beg hon. Members opposite to think whether the rights of the case, whether the mere question of justice to these fishermen, ought riot to outweigh the fact that a Government Department have initiated this Bill. It is not enough to say that a thing is in the interests of the public. It has become almost too facile an excuse for right hon. Members opposite to support every action they may take on the ground that it is in the interests of the public. There really is a higher law for hon. Members of Parliament to consider than what is in the interests of the public. We have to consider what is just, and in the long run it will be found that that which is unjust is not permanently in the interests of the public.

Colonel GUEST: I rise to support the rejection of this Bill, and I do it for several reasons. In the first place, Parliament has had no opportunity until this moment of discussing the merits of this Bill at all, and no Papers relative to the matter have been available for Members as a whole, though I must admit that, thanks to the courtesy of the Minister of Agriculture, I have been put in touch with some of the information relating to this subject. This is a big
Measure which has been put before Parliament. It is granting an exclusive right for the Several fishery for 60 years. That is a big grant, and it is being done to the exclusion of certain public rights. This Bill, I know, is being opposed by the fishermen of Whitstable and the fishermen of Tollesbury, and, in their interest, I think it is right that this matter should be opposed in the Douse, if only for the Ministry to justify the action which they propose to take. There are certain definite grounds for opposition. The Whitstable fishermen oppose it because this is the bottom of the sea on which oysters can be dredged. The Tollesbury fishermen oppose the Bill because they can dredge a certain class of fish for which there is a ready sale for agricultural purposes in that part of the world. Therefore, there are two definite lines of opposition by the local fishermen to this Bill. I think the Government should explain to the House, in the granting of this exclusive right for 60 years, what they, who are the custodians of the public rights, are getting for the State in return.
This is a big right to grant to a private corporation, and when it does counteract and militate against the rights of private fishermen, who, all their lives, have worked for their likelihood on these fishing grounds, it becomes an even bigger thing still. I very much sympathise with the, attitude and the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down in regard to what compensation, if any, is going to be paid to the men who are displace in their occupation. I would like to know whether, in the inquiry, this matter of compensation was closely considered. I do not object to the fact that the Government, under the Act of 1868, have the right to grant this Several fishery, but the question of compensation to those who for generations have been users of this public right seems to me to be a matter for special consideration. Perhaps the Minister will be so good as to tell us how far this question has been considered, and what line he thinks will be most fair to the fishermen to take. I believe the point made by the proposer of the Bill is that there is a particular sheltered area which is to be granted to this private corporation where men can go out and
fish in bad weather, when they cannot go out to sea in small boats. That is undoubtedly a small point of value to the fisherman, and if it is to the general good to grant a concession of this nature, undoubtedly compensation should be paid to those concerned. I am sure every hon. Member will feel sympathy for the fishermen who for generations have been working on this particular area of water, and thereby getting their livelihood. I know that any of the public cane utilise this water and dredge for fish, but it is the right of user which gives these men a claim to special consideration. For those reasons, I support the rejection of the Bill.

Major WHELER: I support the Third Reading of the Bill. I must congratulate the Mover of the Motion for the rejection on having put his case clearly and well and I should like to join in the congratulations which he has already received for his able championship of the fishermen whom he represents. But Chen all is said and done, we come to the facet that a public inquiry was held a Whitstable, in the first instance, and every type of evidence was given, and, as a result of that evidence., it was agreed that the Order should be, made. The Tollesbury fishermen, I gather, could not come, over on account of bad weather, or something of that, sort. I have never heard of fishermen being afraid of bad weather to the extent the fishermen seemed to be on that occasion. At any rate, they did not appear, but, in order to give theme a full opportunity of having their case heard, a local inquiry was held at their own place, and, in spite of that, inquiry, I understand the Order is to be made. So that, after all the inquiries on both sides, and when these people who have, a very strong objection have been given the chance to express their views, we find that this Order is to be made, and I hope the Third Reading of the Bill will be carried tonight.
This seems to me a claim by the Essex fishermen very largely to come over on to the Kentish borders. I have nothing to do with Whitstable, but I live close alongside. Of course, in every case there are people who object to something, but I venture to say the bulk of people in Whitstable will not object, and the Urban District Council, who are the elected body of the district, are not opposing it.
Therefore, I think we may discount, to a very great extent, the opposition of Whitstable. The opposition comes from fishermen on the other side, who claim the right to come over and collect star fish, and so on, for manurial purposes. That is really the gravamen of the charge. They are allowed to collect star fish which, as everybody knows, are fish which prey upon oysters, and therefore are vermin. It is in order to enable these vermin to be encouraged and gathered in this area by the fishermen of Essex that this opposition to the Bill is being maintained, and, of course, if there is the large amount of star fish mentioned as collected in the area, it must be perfectly plain that the area must be seriously affected by this type of star fish, which undoubtedly do a very serious harm to the oyster fishery
The company has asked to have the right to an increased area for the development of its business. It has the power to clear that bit of ground of this sea vermin, and, generally, to increase the oyster fishery there. This is no new idea. It is being done by our neighbours across the water, the Dutch, who have in the waters of the Scheldt, I believe, carried out this policy, with the result that to-day they have a great and thriving oyster fishery there, and a large number of the oysters come to this country. All that is being asked by thins company is to be allowed to extend their area, to preserve a part, which is now infested with vermin, with a view to increasing the supply of oysters, and the mere fact, that, in order to protect that ground, constant care and attention will be needled, should ensure a considerable amount of work for people so employed. This is the cause of a company coming to this House, asking for leave to encourage and extend a legitimate industry in a way which is being done, as I say, by our neighbours across the water with very great success.
On the other hand they are met with an opposition, very largely from across the other side of the Douse, the principal object of which seems to be that the fish shall lie and subsequently make manure. Can there be any comparison between the two objects? Looking at the matter from the common-sense point of view, the one object is to encourage what has always been and will be a good, useful,
legitimate industry on the shores of Kent, and on the other side to make provision for Essex farms. I have not the slightest hesitation in asking that the Douse shall deal with this matter on a common-sense basis, to support the Third Reading of this Bill, and to allow what has been done here and elsewhere to speak for itself. In Holland and elsewhere the supply of oysters has been increased, and has given employment to a certain number of people. We ask that a company which has carried on this business for over 30 years, and which can show a very useful record of work, large sums of money paid out in wages and other ways, shall be allowed to continue to promote this industry and to extend its operations.

9.0 P.M.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): A good deal of the discussion on this Bill has taken place upon the broad question of policy which, after all, was settled by this House more than fifty years ago. This Order is made under the Act of 1868, and that Act was founded on the Report of a Royal Commission. The Commission recommended as the best means of keeping up the supply of oysters that
to facilitate the proceedings of those individuals or companies who might desire to acquire so much property in favourably situated portions of the sea bottom as to suffice to enable them safely to invest capital in repairing and preserving those portions of the sea bottom for oyster cultures—
The Commission were satisfied that it was impossible to produce oysters by unaided nature, and that unless oyster beads, are regularly looked after they are subject to (1) over fishing, and (2) invasion of slipper limpets, dog whelks, five fingers, sea urchins, and other pests. They came to the conclusion that if we wanted to produce oysters around the country there was one, and only one way, in which it could be done, and that was by giving over certain small tracts of the bottom of the sea to those who would make it their business and spend their money to preserve the oysters in these particular places. The Act of 1868 was passed. Subsequently this policy was again considered by a Select Committee in 1876. That Committee reported:
Your committee approve the practice of granting portions of foreshore to private individuals and companies for the purpose
of breeding and feeding oysters, and they are further of opinion that the policy of making grants of portions of the bottom of the sea for the cultivation of oysters shall be continued.
So that this wads two occasions on which this matter has been thoroughly investigated in this country, and it has been decided that if you want to have oysters at all the only way to get them is by this system. But this Bill does not stand alone. The same policy has been pursued by France, Holland, and the United States. The following is an extract from a recent Report on the oyster fishery of the latter country, the United States, by a Frenchman. The Report says:
Thirty years ago the oyster industry of the East underwent a grave crisis. Its relied up till then on fishing natural beds which repopulated themselves. But when the shock on the beds fell below a certain limit repopulation no longer occurred, the depletion of the beds increased, and of the greater part of the coast the beds disappeared entirely with the result that large communities were reduced to great distress. It was then that the official department of the United States and the great oyster planters undertook to re-establish the beds either by making use of layings on the old natural beds and restocking them, or by the creation of new layings. The experiment was remarkably successful, and it is on account of the creation of these great beds, exploited by the method, that it is possible to obtain oysters in such quantities and at so cheap a price.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I think it is a matter of common knowledge that in the United States oysters are no longer a luxury, but almost a matter of everyone's food, because their price has been brought down so low by the adoption of this very system.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it a monopoly?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes. This is the policy which has been adopted after careful consideration in -this country. It has been adopted in every country in the world that produces oysters, because it has been found to be the, only policy under which oysters can be produced. The hon. Member for North Bristol (Colonel Guest) raised the question of compensation to be given to fishermen. There is no possibility of giving compensation under the Act of 1868. No provision is there made for it. What is laid down in the Act is that inquiry shall be held, and a Bill
presented subsequently to Parliament. So much for the general question. I trust I have made it clear that if we want to produce oysters at all in this country it is only by the method of settled occupation that this possibly can be done, and oysters produced.
Now for the particular case. The Act of 1868 lays it down that inquiry shall be held. An inquiry was held at Whitstable on the 2nd February. I may say it was an unprejudiced and an impartial inquiry, and I think I may fairly claim that, the award was given on the merits of the case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was counsel allowed to be employed?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes. An hon. and learned Member of this House was employed as counsel. The award that was given Said:
(c) That the cultivation of the additional ground will both increase the supply of oysters available for the public and provide the fishermen with increased and more regular employment and remuneration.
(d) That the ground proposed to be acquired is neither better nor worse than the average public grounds in cleanliness or productivity, and that it is used by public fishermen to about the same extent as the other grounds, its use depending upon the conditions of wind and tide.
(e) That in view of the fact that the ground proposed to be acquired is so small as compared with the extent of the public grounds, its closure to the public would inflict no appreciable injury upon anyone, and there is no force in Mr. Guthrie's contention based upon the Board of Trade regulations.
(14) On the whole, I have no hesitation in recommending that the order should be granted.
The statutory inquiry was held, and that was the recommendation. A subsequent inquiry was also held and the conclusion was the same. The Bill was introduced after the inquiry had taken place at Whitstable. It was not opposed in this House and did not go before the Private Bills Committee. Personally I am sorry that it did not, and I think it would have, been much better that it should have come before a Committee upstairs sitting before a judicial body. If there is any dispute there ought to be an inquiry by a judicial and not a political body Something has been said about the poor fishermen, but I would remind hon. Members that the opponents of this Bill are not all poor fishermen. This Bill was
opposed by a prominent member of a wealthy firm in Essex. It was quite within the competence of that firm to oppose this Bill before a Committee upstairs, but that was not done, and instead of opposing the Bill before a judicial body it is now being opposed in this House on the Third Reading. I think the House ought to consider that if there are any special circumstances in this case that should take it out of the general rule laid down by the Act of 1868.
I would like to say a word about what my hon. Friend behind me described as the agriculture case. He speaks of the star fish that is so good for manure. The value of such fish that would come out of this particular area might possibly be about £100 gross value in a whole year. I would point out that star fish are the vermin of the sea, and I cannot feel if it was fairly put before the agriculturists of Essex that they would be any more desirous of imposing upon these people the maintenance of star fish, than it would be to impose upon the farmers of Essex the maintenance of a stock of rabbits or a stock of rats. As a matter of fact, under the operation of this Bill you will get more star fish than at the present time. The object of the company would be to clear out the star fish as fast as they can in this particular area, so that the farmers of Essex will stand at first at all events not to get less, but more star fish.
Then there is a complaint of people being deprived of the right, to use this particular water. As a matter of fact, it is said to be a particularly useful bit of water that they want. There is no evidence of that whatever in any of these inquiries, and the conclusion was, that, it was just as good and just as bad as any of the neighbouring water, and only forms one-hundredth part of the dredging ground on the Kentish flat, and they would really gain far more than they will lose, because the company will give to the fishermen lucrative employment in cleansing this ground. Besides this, the neighbouring ground will provide a market for oyster food and immature oysters to the fishermen of the estuary. It will also provide spat on adjacent grounds, and they will buy it fro the fishermen. Altogether, the fishermen of this district, if you take it as a whole, stand to gain a great deal more than they stand to lose by this Bill becoming law.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is there any right now for theses people to fish there, and is that right going to be taken away from them?

Sir R. SANDERS: The Act of Parliament of 1868 says that that shall be done, ands that has always been done, otherwise we should not have any oysters here at all. That has been the system ever since 1868.

Sir F. BANBURY: One bad precedent does not make a good case.

Sir R. SANDERS: This is a private Bill, and it is not the intention of the Government to put on the Whips. Personally, I hope the Douse will support the Bill, because it gives more, not less, manure for Essex agriculturists, more, and not less, employment and profit to the fishermen of the Estuary, and it tends to increase the production of oysters, which we all agree is a most, desirable end.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I think we ought to thank the Minister of Agriculture for the full statement which he has made, although after listening to it I think hon. Members will feel that all the more they ought to go into the Lobby against the Third Reading of this Measure. I think the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was one of great importance. If this is really a bad precedent with regard to the rights of people fishing there, why should it be continued? I would remind the Minister of Agriculture of something which does appear in the Act of 1868. We have been advised not to read that Act, but I notice that in Clause 4 that it not only confers an absolute monopoly on this company with regard to fishing rights in this particular piece of water, but it also gives them the right to levy tolls and royalties on to anybody else coming into that area. Section 48 of the same Act provides that
No Order made by the Board of Trade under this part of this Act shall take away or abridge any right of several fishery, or any right on, to, or over any portion of the seashore, which right is enjoyed by any person under any local or special Act of Parliament, or any Royal Charter, Letters Patent, Prescription, or immemorial usage, without the consent of such person.
There seems to be no getting behind a Clause of that sort and character, and I have heard no defence of it from the Minister of Agriculture, or from the hon. Member who opposed the Amendment for
the rejection of the Bill. With regard to getting away from the provisions laid down in the original Statute under which the Minister takes the power to make the Order contained in the Schedule to this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that this policy has been adopted for 50 years. There are heaps of policies which have been adopted for 50 years which many Members on these benches, at any rate, would be glad to see altered, and, if I may say so without offence to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is a great sign of the opening vision of some Members of the party opposite to the rights of the common people which we have not always observed their will to defend. [Horn. MEMBERS:"No, no!"]

Mr. LANSBURY: All right, come into the Lobby.

ALEXANDER: We are very glad to observe that principle so eloquently and so ably denunciated from the mother side. Then the Minister of Agriculture, in making this grant to the private corporation concerned, said there would be more employment for the fishermen. I beg leave rather to question that claim. I do not think it can be proved as a general rule that the creation of monopolies increases the amount of employment. Hon. Gentlemen will find, as a matter of fact, if this remains a free fishery there will be a greater amounts of employment for the fishermen than they will be able to obtain from the private corporation. Monopolies lead to a restriction of output or to putting up prices and the restriction of output for price purposes always leads to unemployment. I am rather surprised that the Minister of Agriculture has not adopted in this matter the principle which he and his friends have so ably advocated in regard to other matters connected with his Department in the last 12 months, namely, that the Department and the State generally should give every possible encouragement to co-operation among producers in a particular industry. Here we have a large number of free fishermen who have had handed down from their forefathers and have enjoyed the immemorial usage of these free fishing waters. If there were any possible difficulty about these fishermen replenishing the oyster beds, and mainlining supplies, the Minister of Agriculture,
with his enthusiasm for co-operation, should have come along with a cooperative scheme for the free fishermen to be able to work together on a co-operative basis, instead of granting a monopoly to this private corporation. I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers that point, will see that although consistency is not always the finest quality to possess, in this particular matter there would seem to be considerable value in it.
I want to mention one other point. The hon and gallant Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise), who opposed the Motions for the Third Reading, said the whole of the opposition to this Bill was coming, not from Whitstable, but from another quarter. That is just a mere statement which is not borne out by the evidence, not only of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill, but of the hon. and gallant Member who seconded it. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said he had been to Whitstable and had been met by a deputation, apparently of the whole community, opposed to this Bill. When we have two conflicting statements of that nature, I would prefer to accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member who went to the place and met the people opposed to the Bill, and I prefer to take his opinion on this particular Measure. We are always in this Douse most jealous of the common rights of the common people, although at times the House has lapsed occasionally from its great tradition in this respect, with the result that to-day there is a good deal of bad feeling in the community in regard to certain matters, and with a view to remedying mistakes which have been made in the past. The House may think that this granting of monopoly right over a square mile of sea fisheries is only a small matter, but at the same time you are filching away the common rights of the common people of this country in favour of vested interests and of profit for private corporations. I hope those hon. Members who love justice and desire to protect the free citizens of this country against the encroachments of monopoly and vested interests will go into the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of the Bill.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: I wish the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise) to understand that I intend to go on eating oysters all my days, although I am not a Lucullus, and I shall do so without any qualms of conscience with regard to the interests of Tollesbury. I think this Order, if confirmed, will be of no real disadvantage to the people of Tollesbury. I cannot think that because they are to be kept from an area, of something like 723 acres of the Thames estuary they will be unable to find five-fingered fish in any other part of that estuary. We have to remember that this matter has been the subject of a most, careful inquiry by a Commission sitting in two places.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: Not, a Commission. It is an inquiry by an inspector sent down by the Department.

Sir T. BENNETT: I quite understand, and I would like to point out the indulgence that was shown to the people of Tollesbury when it was found they were not sufficiently good sailors to cross the Thames in rough weather. Another inquiry was held in consequence for their advantage. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant, Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that in confirming an Order of this kind one should approach the subject with a due regard to the justice of the case. I do not think there is any difference whatever between the two sides of the House on that point, and, although an hon. Member opposite spoke of filching the, rights of the common people, I am prepared here to state that it would have been worth while to have at first considered what rights were involved. We have been told that compensation should have been provided for. I have read a full report of the whole of the inquiry, and do not find a word about compensation in it. The other side was well represented, but no one put forward any claim for compensation, and even if it had been legal to give compensation in these cases we should first of all have had to inquire what rights were involved, what injury had been done to the possessors of common rights over this particular area. Evidence was given as to the value of the fishing rights in that particular area, and to begin with it was shown that it was almost unpro-
ductive. Two days' dredging produced four dozen oysters, or something of that kind. There is no very valuable right wrapped up in that case. Evidence was given as to the value of the rights involved, and I will quote from it. A witness, who was an official representing the Kent and Essex fishery board, was asked:
I think you agree that the community generally which has the right of dredging there is to be debarred from it?
He said:
At the present time as things are what they will get from the labour and employment will more than counteract what they catch.
That is my contention. Another witness, a dredgerman, presumably one of those who enjoy these common rights, said the piece of ground was of no use to the men, because it was not worth while working there. As they stood to-day it would be in the men's favour if the company got the piece of ground. The point at issue is whether that area shall be developed on business like and scientific lines or whether it shall be left at the mercy of sea pests. Assuming that this Order is not confirmed and that the so-called rights of the dredgermen and fishermen remain intact, what are they to get out of it? What is the harvest of the sea going to be for them? Is it going to be oysters and edible fish, or sea urchins, slipper limpets, or some of those other remarkable things of which we have had a catalogue to-night? That is what we have to choose between. In Dolland, and in France also, I believe, the choice has been made. Instead of leaving these rights in common and wasting the products of Nature they have been enclosed, preserved, and developed on scientific lines. We have heard something like this argument in regard to other matters, and in another part of the world I have heard proclaimed the right of the people to do what they liked with the forests. Well, they do what they like with the forests, and it means destroying the inheritance of the nation and injuring its prosperity. Here, if hon. Members on the other side of the Douse had their way, a valuable edible product would be destroyed and, instead of food for the people, we should have vermin occupying the whole of that space.
We have been told it is monopoly. Where is the monopoly? Here are 730 acres. That does not mean taking up the whole of the Thames estuary. There is other suitable land within reach of them which could be made the subject of an order like this, and as to the advantage of the people I take it is of some advantage to them to take in 10 years something like £14,000 a year for wages and pay for dredging, pay for boats. That is what the operations of this so-called monopolising company have led to. I say, go on, continue, give these people the opportunity to develop this area, to give employment, and to contribute to the prosperity of Whitstable. I admire the devotion which the hon. and gallant Member showed for the interests of the fishermen of Tollesbury, but, after all, we have to think of the interests of a great oyster-developing community, that community which, strangely enough, is said to have accompanied the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his recent visit to Whitstable. I do not think all Whitstable turned out to welcome him. I can imagine the town band and flags flying, but I believe a few of the inhabitants of Whitstable stayed at home on that night. At any rate, we have enough facts before us to enable us to arrive at a fair conclusion, and I would urge the Douse not to stand in the way of what no doubt is a profitable undertaking for those who are prepared to go into it, but which, on the whole, will be of advantage to the public and the fishermen of Whitslble.

Mr. EDE: I want to deal with one aspect of the matter which has been forced upon me by the hon. Member to whom we have just listened. It seems to me that for the last hour or so we have slipped back about 120 years in time, and have been listening once again to the old arguments used when it was proposed to enclose the commons. For my sins, 10 years ago I had to read through a good many of the proceedings of this Douse and such scanty records as have been preserved of the Committees that then sat to consider Enclosure Bills, and on every one of those occasions exactly the same arguments were used as have been used by the Minister this evening and by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. When you come to boil it down, all they
plead is that the passing of this Bill will lead to the improvement of the industry and to the additional employment of people as workers for wages instead of, as is the case at present in a good many cases, as the owners of the smacks which are used in this particular industry. I am quite sure that now that we look back on them through the vista of time everyone will wish that the majority of the Enclosure Acts had never been past, and we admit now when we are reviewing the sins of other people that the House of Commons inflicted irreparable injury on the people of this country by passing these Enclosure Acts. Until I hear better arguments than have come from the two hon. Members who have been the main advocates of this Bill I shall support the hon. Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise) who moved the rejection of the Bill. I do not think we ought to let pass without grave consideration the issue raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). I think the point was a most serious one, and he has received no answer from the Ministry or from the supporters of this Bill. [Interruption.] Well, I will say no adequate answer.

Sir T. BENNETT: The answer is that, according to the evidence, the so-called rights are worth next to nothing

Sir F. BANBURY: That is no reason why they should be taken away.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Company wants them all right!

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I was personally at the inquiry; I heard the evidence, and it is perfectly clear that these rights are of very considerable value.

Mr. EDE: The right to work as a free man in your own vessel is of very considerable value, even if you cannot assess it from the money point of view. What we have to realise is that this miserable area spoken of so contemptuously by the last speaker of only just over one square mile—these 730 acres—represents almost the last on which these men can ply their particular industry, and even if that is not so there is nothing in the argument of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett) that would not allow those areas to be enclosed as soon as this particular monopoly found that these men
had discovered some last refuge, from which they could carry on a competition with it. The whole of the arguments that have been used this evening are so easily destroyed, when one considers them in their historical aspect compared with the enclosure of the land, that I hope this Douse will rise to the occasion, and will see that this small amount of freedom which these men still claim to enjoy is not taken from them by our act.

Mr. RITSON: I would not have risen but for the fact that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett) made reference to the fact that no one seemed to be concerned in this matter. May I inform the hon. Member that, as a stranger from the North of England, I was down at Herne Bay, unknown to anyone except for the fact that I was going to speak there, but a very large deputation of fishermen came to me to ask if I could not do something in this matter. I asked them who their Member of Parliament was, and I was astonished when they told me that he was an hon. Gentleman who sits on the Government Bench. I asked them what their grievance was, and they said that this monopoly was going to take away a right that their forefathers had had for years and years. I said to them that, surely, they had only to put

the matter before their Member, because neither he nor any other hon. Member would allow such a condition of things to exist. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks could not give a better text for preaching class feeling than this. We have the Prime Minister at the present time in Glasgow and Edinburgh telling people that the way to cure this class fever is to be kind to people, and then the Government comes along and takes away from these people the rights which their forefathers have enjoyed for years. We are told to encourage men in their occupation. We are told that the best thing for a man is work, that it will stop this class bitterness if we give them freedom to work and produce. Here is an opportunity to do so, and the Minister of Agriculture comes and proposes to take away these people's rights. I feel that to take away the legal rights of these fishermen—they are so few in this country, and we ought to make them more—will be, to cause more bitterness even than is anticipated. I hope that hon. Members on the opposite side of the Douse will, at least, stand against the Ministry on this occasion.

Question put, "That the word now ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 184.

Division No. 344.]
AYES.
[9.40 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Privett, F. J.


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Raine, W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Remnant, Sir James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Halstead, Major D.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, F. C.
Singleton, J. E.


Briggs, Harold
Hawke, John Anthony
Slott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Tubbs, S. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Wise, Frederick


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Falconer, J.
Nall, Major Joseph



Flanagan, W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Thomas Bennett and Major Wheler.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Parker, Owen (Kettering)



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Garland, C. S.
Perring, William George



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Bonwick, A.
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Bowdler, W. A.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)


Ammon, Charles George
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cassels, J. D.


Attlee, C. R.
Broad, F. A.
Clarke, Sir E. C.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Barnes, A.
Bruford, R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buckle, J.
Clayton, G. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hurd, Percy A.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Collison, Levi
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Rhodes, Lieut-Col. J. P.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Richards, R.


Cope, Major William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Riley, Ben


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones. R. T. (Carnarvon)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Salter, Dr. A.


Duncan, C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ede, James Chuter
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sexton, James


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lawson, John James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Leach, W.
Simpson, J. Hope


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Foot, Isaac
Linfield, F. C.
Skelton, A. N.


Furness, G. J.
Lorden, John William
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L.R.
Snell, Harry


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, J.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
March, S
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Greaves-Lord, Waiter
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Thornton, M.


Greenall, T.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Turner, Ben


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Middleton, G.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Warne G. H.


Gretton, Colonel John
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hardie, George D.
Morel, E. D.
Webb, Sidney


Harvey, Major S. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hastings, Patrick
Muir, John W.
Weir, L. M.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wells, S. R.


Hayday, Arthur
Newbold, J. T. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
O'Grady, Captain James
Whiteley, W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hill, A.
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hillary, A. E.
Philipps, Vivian
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hinds, John
Pielou, D. P.



Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Ruggles-Brise and Colonel Guest.


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Pringle, W. M. R.



Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Third Reading put off for three months.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow; at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of Lords Amendments resumed.

CLAUSE 7.—(Excessive charges for furniture, etc., taken over in connection with tenancies.)

(1) Where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as a condition
of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance, and the provisions of Section eight of the principal Act, including penal provisions, shall apply accordingly.

(2) Where a tenant who by virtue of the principal Act retains possession of a dwelling-house to which that Act applies requires that furniture or other articles shall be purchased as a condition of giving up possession, the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles the excess shall be treated as a sum asked to be paid as a condition of giving up possession, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fifteen of the principal Act (including penal provisions) shall apply accordingly.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "such" ["and if such price"], and insert "the."

In Sub-section (2): After the word "shall" ["price demanded shall be stated in writing"], insert
at the request of the person on whom the demand is made.
Leave out the word "such" ["and If such price exceeds"], and insert "the."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Restriction on right to possession, in, certain cases after the expiry of the principal Act.)

(5) In order to assist the Court in the determination of questions arising under this part of this Act in relation to the rent, character or condition of dwelling-houses, the Minister of Health may establish reference committees to whom such questions may be referred by the Court for consideration and report, as the Court thinks proper.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "as the Court thinks proper."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Reduction of rent pending the execution of repairs.)

(1) If the County Court on the application of a sitting tenant is satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority and such further evidence (if any) as may be adduced that the dwelling-house is not in a reasonable state of repair and that the condition of the dwelling-house is not due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of agreement, the Court may order that the rent shall be reduced until the Court is satisfied on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise that the necessary repairs (other than any repairs for which, the tenant is liable) have been executed, and subject to the terms of the order the rent shall be payable at such reduced rate as may be specified therein until the Court is so satisfied.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["or breach of agreement"], insert "express."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 11, insert

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Restriction of calling in of mortgages.)

(1) Where a dwelling-house in the occupation of a sitting tenant is subject to a
mortgage to which the principal Act applied, the County- Court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied that such calling in, enforcement or recovery would cause exceptional hardship to the landlord. The County Court may, on the application of the mortgagee or landlord rescind or vary any order so made if satisfied that by reason of any material change in circumstances, rescission or variation is necessary or proper.

(2) The restrictions imposed on a mortgagee by an order under this Section may be imposed subject to such conditions as regards increase of interest or otherwise and for such time as appears to the Court to be proper, but so nevertheless that the restrictions shall cease to be operative if at any time after the making of the order—

(a) interest is more than twenty-one days in arrear; or
(b) any covenant by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) is broken or not performed; or
(c) the mortgagor fails to keep the property in a proper state of repair or to pay the interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance; or
(d) the sitting tenant ceases to be tenant of the dwelling-house.

(3) This Section shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage.

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Regulations as to reference committees.)

(3) Every Regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by each of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be confirmed, His Majesty in Council may confirm the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth have the force of law.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (3) and insert a new Sub-section:

(3) Before any Regulation under this Section is made, it shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such Regulation shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft, either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses
agree but upon such approval being given the Minister of Health may make the Regulation in the form in which it has been approved, and the Regulation on being so made shall be of full force and effect.

Agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money to associations for the purpose of making advances upon certain mortgages.)

(5) For the purposes of this Act "approved association" means an association which is approved by the Treasury for the purposes of this Act, and which does not trade for profit or by its constitution or otherwise is restricted in relation to the rate of interest on loan capital and the distribution of profits amongst its members so as to comply with Regulations made in that behalf by the Treasury.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (5) leave out the word "Act" ["For the purposes of this Act"] and insert "Section, the expression."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At end of Sub-section (5) insert
and the expression 'person' in the definition of borrower shall, without prejudice to the effect of Section nineteen of the Interpretation Act, 1889, include an association registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, and having for its object, or one of its objects, the provision of small holdings or allotments.

Sir R. SANDERS: I beg to move, "That this Douse doth aree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that the word "person" includes such associations.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This Amendment, while it is all to the good in giving
the interpretation mentioned by the Minister, that "person" shall include industrial and provident societies, confines the advantage which an industrial society can get out of this part of the Bill to holdings of 50 acres or less. Other persons who may get the benefit of the first part of the Bill may get credits in regard to land purchase, irrespective of the size of the holding, but, in the case of industrial and provident societies, by the wording of the Amendment, they will confine their operations to small holdings or allotments. While it is rather late in the day, it would have been much better if the Minister could have seen his way to include, besides small holdings and allotments, land for other agricultural occupation. I do not know if it is possible for that to be done now.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid it is too late now.

CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of Land Improvement Acts.)

(5) Section eighteen of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, in so far as it prohibits without an order of the Court of Session the making of any provisional or other order sanctioning the improvement of land where the landowner or the husband of the landowner is an heir of entail in possession or a life renter and is the father of the next heir, or heirs, or of a succeeding life renter or life renters or of the fiar or fiars, and such heir succeeding life renter or fiar, or one or more of such heirs succeeding life 'renters or fiars, is in minority shall cease to have effect.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words
or the husband of the landowner is an heir of entail in possession or a life renter and
and insert
is an heir of entail in possession or a life renter, and where such landowner or the husband of such landowner.
Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Scotland.)

This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:
(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Account shall be substituted for the Agricultural Credits Account; "freehold or copyhold land" shall mean "land held in fee simple"; "mort-
gage" shall mean "heritable security"; "devisee" shall include "legatee";

Lords Amendment:

At end of paragraph (a), insert
incumbrance shall not include a burden or charge incident to tenure.
Agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [24th July] on Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee.)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of polling hours.)

For the purposes of any election under this Act the powers, duties, and rights conferred upon a candidate, agent, or returning officer by The Extension of Polling Flours Act, 1913, shall apply as if the election were a Parliamentary election.—[Mr. Neil Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. Neil Maclean.]

Question again proposed.

Captain ELLIOT: May I ask the indulgence of the House in the temporary absence of the Solicitor-General for Scotland—

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if there is any idea of the Solicitor-General accepting the Amendment which has been moved from this side of the House, or, if not, if there is any other method they are prepared to put forward in substitution of our Amendment which may meet us in the claims we are making?

Captain ELLIOT: There was a new Clause moved from the front Opposition Bench with regard to the hours of polling in municipal elections in Scotland, and it was decided to adjourn the Debate so that investigation could be conducted by the Scottish Office with regard to the position of local authorities whether they did or did not desire an extension of the hours. The Solicitor-General, after making inquiries, came to the conclusion that same concession should be made in
this matter, and I understand he has a solution to propose which it is hoped will meet the views of hon. Members in other parts of the Douse who urge this upon us.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): I must apologise to the Douse for being a moment or two late, owing to the Bill having come on unexpectedly. When we were discussing it last week, a new Clause was proposed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) to apply to municipal elections in Scotland the same law as applies to Parliamentary Elections—the Extension of Polling Hours Act of 1913. I indicated that, so far as I was able to ascertain it, municipal opinion in Scotland is against this proposal. This Bill is the outcome of a conference of the leading municipalities in Scotland, and was introduced some time ago in the Douse of Lords, and never until the other day did we hear any suggestion made that there should be an extension of polling hours in municipal elections. On the Second Reading no mention was made of any such proposal, nor was there any proposal on the Paper for the Committee stage. It was raised by an hon. Member at the very close of the Committee stage. It is very obvious that one was left with little time to consult municipal opinion in Scotland. I have, however, got into touch with the Convention of Royal Burghs, as representing Scottish municipal opinion, and ascertained that as far as they were concerned they thought there was no occasion for an extension of hours for poling at municipal elections. On considering the matter, I thought it might be possible to agree to a Clause which would provide that if the council of a burgh expressed themselves by resolution as in favour of their being an extension of the hours of polling up to the limit allowed for Parliamentary elections, that is, an hour in the morning from 7 to 8, and an hour in the evening from 8 to 9, they should have power under the law to extend the hours.
That seemed to me to be a reasonable proposal, and I put it forward to the hon. Member for Govan this afternoon, but with great candour and frankness he told me that it did not in any way meet what he desired. What he wishes is the application of a Parliamentary rule, so that
any candidate can by application by him self or through his agent obtain an extension of the polling hours for an hour in the morning and an hour at night. I thought that I was meeting any desire that there might be in Scotland—but so far as I can ascertain it from the municipalities there is none,—by proposing that a town council should have power by resolution to extend the hours of polling My hon. Friend has told me that that does not in any way meet his point.
I would point out to my hon. Friend that his proposed Clause has very serious drawbacks. It would enable one candidate in a municipal election, for instance, in the City of Glasgow, where there are 37 wards, to ask for an extension of the polling hours and to impose that extension on all the other candidates. It would either mean that, or you would have different hours of polling in different wards in the city. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That would involve great confusion at municipal elections. The town clerk of Edinburgh, the Bills Committee of the Aberdeen Town Council, and the town clerk of Dundee, have expressed their strong disapproval of that proposal. I think it must be obvious to hon. Members that if you have in one ward of a large city polling from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., in another ward polling from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and in another ward polling from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., you would have very great confusion. That, would not be a practicable or workable proposal.
10.0 P.M.
I have got into touch with municipal opinion in Scotland. I have approached the Convention. They were not able to have a meeting, but the leading officials and the chairmen of the different committees have been consulted, and as far as the Convention and those in touch with the opinion of the Convention are aware, there is an almost unanimous feeling among the burghs against the proposed new Clause. On the last occasion my hon. Friend thought that my allusion to what happened in 1913 was out of date. On that occasion, 114 burghs sent in replies to the request of the Convention as to whether they thought any extension of polling hours were desirable, and all but five were opposed to the change. Of the five, two expressed no view, and only three burghs expressed themselves in
favour of the change. At that time, a good many of the smaller burghs stated that they thought a town council ought to have power to restrict the hours. They thought that in small burghs the hours from 10 to six were enough, and that the present hours imposed a considerable hardship on officials and clerks without any good purpose being served With regard to Edinburgh, I find that this proposal to apply the Parliamentary rule to municipal elections was considered by the city council early this year. It came up when they were considering this Bill, and they unanimously turned the proposal down. That is a significant thing. In Edinburgh it was felt that there is sufficient time for polling between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. In the years before the War there was a considerable rush between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., but since the War the heaviest hours of polling have been between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. It must be remembered that, fortunately, the hours of work are not so long, and there is more opportunity for polling earlier than before. That is a point that has been made not only in Edinburgh but by other municipalities. It is made by the Town Clerk of Glasgow and also by the Town Council of Paisley. If you extend the hours of polling, it means that the counting has to be done at a later hour, and the result may not be declared until the following day. It means a very long day for the presiding officers and the poll clerks—a 14-hour day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Once a year!"] It means a long and harassing day. At the last Parliamentary election very little advantage was taken of the extension in those constituencies where the hours were extended.
Passing now from Edinburgh to Glasgow, it has not been possible in the short time for the council as a whole to consider this matter, but it has been considered by the Parliamentary Bills Committee, and they disapproved of my hon. Friend's proposal by 15 votes to seven. Among the arguments that influenced them was the small advantage taken of the additional hour in the case of the Parliamentary elections, also the easier working hours in operation which make it easier to poll before 8 p.m., and, further, the undesirability of extending the hours
over which the presiding officers and poll clerks are required to be on duty. Now I pass to Aberdeen. I am sorry to trouble the Douse with all these details, but I wish to establish that municipal opinion in Scotland does not desire this change. The matter, was considered by the Bills Committee of the Aberdeen Town Council, and they said that if any change is made in the law it should only be in the direction which I have indicated—that the town council might by resolution, if they wished, have power to extend the hours. In Dundee they have not been able to have a meeting of the town council, but the town clerk says that no doubt opinion will be divided on the point, but he sees no reason for the change. He points out, as a drawback to the proposal, that it means that one candidate would be able to alter the hours in a city so that the election would be held in different wards at different times, and he expresses a strong view against that proposal. He again says that if there is any change it should be in the direction of allowing the town council by resolution to extend the hours. The Paisley Town Council met and were strongly opposed to any extension of the polling hours. They think it unnecessary on the ground that I have already given.

Mr. MACLEAN: What were the figures?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I cannot give the figures. I am told that the town council were strongly opposed to the present Amendment. They met on the 26th July. The Association of County Councils have not had a meeting, but those who were consulted were strongly opposed to the proposal. In 1913 they took up an attitude of opposition, and those who were now consulted had no reason to believe that there has been any change since that date. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) has been written to by the town council of that unfortunate borough. The town clerk has had communications with all councillors whom he has been able to meet, and he says that he finds that the opinion of the majority is that the hours should remain as they are at present. I have had a telegram from the town clerk of Ayr saying that the majority of the councillors of Ayr are against any extension of polling hours. There is a similar telegram
from Troon. Not a single word has been said to me in favour of the proposal. I may say, with great confidence that, in the short time at my disposal, I have done all I could to consult the municipal opinion in Scotland and I find it strongly opposed to any such change.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to give to the Douse the terms of the compromise which he has offered?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I told my hon. Friend this afternoon, and be indicated that he was not willing to consider it. It provided that the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, should have effect as if the following proviso were added to the end thereof.
Provided always that where a council are satisfied that it is necessary in order to afford to all electors such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances, they may by resolution, proposed not later than one month before the issue in any year of the notice referred to in Section 42, resolve to keep open the poll so as not to commence earlier than seven o'clock in the forenoon and not keep open later than nine o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. MACLEAN: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his zeal in replying to obtain the views of Scottish municipalities in regard to the proposed Amendment. With the exception, however, of Paisley none of them have held a meeting of the council.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The Town Council of Edinburgh discussed the proposal this year, and unanimously decided against any extension.

Mr. MACLEAN: Members from the south-west of Scotland think that Edinburgh does not count. I was going to refer to Edinburgh later on. Of the municipalities with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to get in touch, Paisley is the only one whose corporation has held a meeting. The opinions in the other cases are mainly opinions given by town clerks and officials.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: In Glasgow the Parliamentary Bills Committee and in Aberdeen the Bills Committee decided against it.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is not the town council itself. Even in the case of Glasgow, one-third of the Parliamentary Bills Committee was in favour of the Amendment, and if it were brought before the town council, if defeated at all, it would have been defeated by only four or five votes. The present Labour representation on -the Glasgow Corporation numbers 44. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that this Amendment was sprung upon him in Grand Committee, and that he received no notification on Second Reading of any intention to move this Amendment, but he will also remember that he himself was of opinion that municipalities a-leady possessed the powers for which we are asking, and his own statement to this effect in the Grand Committee prevented Scottish Members from forcing this matter to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman wound up his statement, when it was pointed out by various Members of the Committee that those powers were not possessed under the previous Act, by saying that he would look into the matter, and, if he found that those powers were not already existing, he would see what he could do on the Report stage. We withdrew our opposition on that understanding. When the Report stage came on there was nothing down in the name of the Government to indicate that the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the matter any consideration. Consequently we had to move, but now we find that he has admitted that the powers which he maintained were already in existence under previous Acts of Parliament do not exist. I am glad, at least, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been prepared to come forward with a compromise, and that he is prepared to give to the municipalities the power to say that within the boundaries of their municipalities they will extend the hours of polling.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: As I said, the time has been very short, and I put it at the first opportunity to my hon. Friend this afternoon, and he told me that the Clause would in no way meet his desires. Of course, as he knows, a new Clause cannot be moved on the Report stage unless it has been put on the Paper. If my hon. Friend had stated that he would accept it, the matter would have been different, but he indicated to me,
quite clearly, that it would not meet the case at all. My hon. Friend is not quite right in saying that the matter would have gone to a Division in the Committee. There was no Amendment before the Committee at that time. It had been ruled out of Order, and the Question had been put by the Chairman. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had got up after the Chairman had put the Question, and I was particularly anxious that he should not feel that he had not a full opportunity of making his point. I intervened in the matter somewhat irrelevantly, and a discussion occurred which would not have taken place. Had I not been particularly desirous to give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs—hon. Members will bear me out in that—the discussion would not have taken place.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Amendment was written out, and handed in in manuscript form. A copy was sent to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, another copy was given to the Chairman, and another copy was retained by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and myself. The Amendment was put forward in proper Order, and was read out by the Chairman. That, however, is not the point. The point is that the present compromise was offered when the hon. and learned Gentleman saw me to-day, and I could not have put it down on the Paper. I could not act without my colleagues in this matter, and give a definite statement to the Solicitor-General that I could accept the compromise he was offering. I had to consult those acting with me, and other Scottish hon. Members. It was therefore impossible to give him a definite reply. It was impossible, when I was stopped in the Lobby at, roughly, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and asked if I could accept a particular thing, without having seen anyone else, to give a statement that I was prepared to accept it. As a matter of fact, the compromise could be as easily put before the House at the present moment as it could have been then. If it is not on the Paper now, it could be put on the Paper to-night. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were willing to offer a compromise at 3 o'clock this afternoon, it can just as easily be offered now.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The difficulty is that the new Clause is not on the Paper, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a new Clause cannot be moved on the Report stage unless it is on the Paper. If my hon. Friends will give me a firm guarantee that my new Clause will go through without opposition to-morrow, and that the Bill will go through in five minutes, I am perfectly ready to put the new Clause on the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: In those circumstances, I am quite prepared to withdraw the new Clause which stands in my name and that of my colleagues. On the distinct understanding that it is put on the Paper to-morrow, we on this side will not offer any opposition to the compromise. That is not all that we want, however. The point ought really to be considered by the Solicitor-General that, where we have candidates who are standing for municipal elections, their requisition should, at least, have some weight with the town council when they are deciding an application for an extension of the voting. The candidates themselves should be able to put before the town council applications for extension.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I must have a firm guarantee that the hon. Member and his Friends will accept my Clause, and he must not seek by any riders to it or any glosses upon it to get his own Clause in by another way. I must have a definite guarantee that the new Clause will be unopposed by any section of the Scottish Members.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not putting this proposal forward as a rider to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause, nor do I intend it in any way to depreciate any guarantee I have given. The Amendment would mean that certain candidates could make application for an extension in the wards which they were contesting. In other wards where no such application was made, the hours would not be extended, and consequently you would have in a municipal election certain wards with extensions and certain wards without extensions. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider that point, but if he cannot, I am prepared to accept the compromise he has offered. I only put it
for his consideration that the candidates should have the right to make representations, if not applications, and then, If the town council decided against them, it would be inoperative, but if the town council decided in favour of them, the extension would prevail for the whole municipality. I merely ask the hon. and learned Member if he is prepared to put that into the compromise and no opposition will be offered tomorrow to the compromise put forward.

Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: I think the compromise offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite fair, namely, that the town council should have the power to extend by resolution the hours in case they desire to do so. The chaos which would be created if a single candidate asked for and obtained an extension for one ward would be unjustified and would involve different times for the recording of votes in the different wards. I ask hon. Members above the Gangway to accept the proposals of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and so far as my Friends are concerned, I am prepared to say that if the hon. and learned Gentleman puts clown the Amendment to-morrow, we will not oppose it.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMrose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken on this Clause.

Mr. GRAHAM: We were then dealing with another Question, Sir. We are dealing with the compromise which has been offered.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing with the New Clause, and only the Mover of the Clause is entitled to speak more than once.

Mr. GRAHAM: May I be allowed to put a question? I am personally favourable to accepting a compromise, but I wish to know if it will apply to the county councils and parish councils in the same way as to the town councils?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I wish it made perfectly clear that this Bill must go through tomorrow as an unopposed Measure, otherwise it will be lost. It is a very essential Bill, for which the town councils of Scotland have been pressing, and it contains a number of useful Amendments of
the law in relation to the machinery of municipal elections. These elections will take place in November and if we do not get the Bill to-morrow as an agreed Measure it will, as I say, be lost, so it must be thoroughly understood that this Clause is to be accepted.

Mr. GRAHAM: May I have an answer to my question?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It applies to the county councils and the parish councils as well.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to move the Adjournment of the Debate till to-morrow, I think I can guarantee him the unopposed passage of the Bill, at least from our side of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: Would not the proper procedure be for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to withdraw his Clause, then for the Solicitor-General for Scotland to put down this new Clause on the Paper for to-morrow, and, after the withdrawal of the present Clause, for him to move the Adjournment of the further consideration of the Bill?

Mr. MACLEAN: I ask leave to withdraw my new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a Measure to give effect to a number of recommendations made by two Committees connected with the administration of criminal justice. It has been the fortune, or misfortune, of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and myself to be associated with one or two rather controversial Bills in con-
nection with legal matters in the course of this Session, but I think and hope that this Bill will not be found controversial by any party or section in the House, or by any hon. Member. It embodies a number of proposals upon which there may not be absolutely a consensus of opinion, and I can understand that hon. Members may have points of view to submit, either to the Douse on Second Reading or in Committee on the Bill upstairs, but, generally speaking, I think I may say that the Government desire to have the assistance of the House. The Bill is in no sense a party Measure. It is not a Bill upon which the Government take the view that they must have every letter or even every Clause of the Bill, though the case which we are able to present, we think, is a very strong one in favour of all the proposals, subject, of course, to small points which the House would not wish me to discuss now, because I want to be as brief upon this matter as is consistent with clarity.
The two Committees which I mentioned are generally known in the legal profession, at any rate, as the Horridge Committee, because it was presided over by Mr. Justice Horridge, and the Bodkin Committee, because the Director of Public Prosecutions presided over the second Committee. The Horridge Committee was appointed in order to inquire into the circumstances in which prisoners committed for trial at assizes or quarter sessions, when not admitted to bail, are sometimes detained for long periods in prison before being tried. The Committee, which was composed of a number of gentlemen very familiar indeed with the course of the administration of justice in criminal cases, made a few simple recommendations, which have been embodied in this Bill, and hon. Members will find in Clauses 1 and 8 the recommendations of the Horridge Committee in substance carried out. The recommendations were that power to commit to any Assize or Sessions convenient as regards time and place should be given. They also recommended that there should be an increase in the number of offences triable either at Assizes or Sessions, that more frequent Sessions should be held, and that the granting of bail, in every possible case where it could reasonably be done, should be allowed.
The last two recommendations require no elaboration. They are merely recommendations to the legal authorities concerned to exercise the powers they already possess under the existing laws. The first two recommendations are carried out by the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, which adds, by means of the First Schedule of the Bill, a number of offences under the law as it already exists which are triable at uarter Sessions, and, unless hon. Members desire any elucidation or information as to any particular offences, I would refer them to the First Schedule. I may say that the Schedule of offences has been very carefully considered, and the recommendations of the Horridge Committee have not been followed meticulously in every respect. If arty hon. Member has any criticism of the Schedule, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General will give in, the utmost consideration, with the desire to give effect to any arguments that may be advanced. Thee other recommendation as to the power to commit to any Assizes or Quarter Sessions is to be found carried out in Clause 8. The recommendation of the Horridge Committee included a power to commit to the Central Criminal Court in any case. That power has not been included in the Bill, but otherwise the Committee's recommendation, which gives a general power to cimmit prisoners to any Assizes or Quarter Sessions convenient as to time and place, is to be found in the Clause. I think hon. Members will agree that nowadays that is a business-like proposal which will ensure more speedy and more economical prosecution of criminal charges.
The rest of the Bill is composed partly of Clauses to deal with the recommendations of the Bodkin Committee, which related to convenience and economy in criminal procedure. As I have already said, I do not propose to go through those Clauses in detail, but the sort of recommendation that is dealt with is the Clause that provides for dispensing with the attendance of purely formal witnesses when the case is tried either at Quarter Sessions or Assizes. Certain witnesses, as everybody who practises in the Courts knows, are required to prove the offence strictly, but they give evidence which is not cross-examined as a rule, and very often it, is practically unnecessary that they should attend; yet, from a legal
point of view, it is necessary. Power is given to the magistrates to mark such witnesses as are unnecessary, and they will not attend, unless notice is given either by the prosecutor or the person charged, so that there will be the fullest opportunity given to everybody desiring the attendance of the witness so marked to obtain his attendance at the trial.
The other proposals are such as are dealt with in Clause 2, which extends the power to deal summarily with indictable offences. Clause 3, which, I hope, will not be found controversial by any hon. Member, provides for the abolition of the Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions. They will remain at the Assizes. On this side of the House we might be supposed to be so thoroughly conservative as to maintain the Grand Jury system, which has been of great historic interest for everybody connected with the legal profession, both at Quarter Sessions and Assizes. There has been a great deal of public discussion and in legal circles as to the future of the Grand Jury system, but I think, on the whole, this Bill carries out the principle most people would think wise, that we should retain the Grand Jury system at Assizes, but at Quarter Sessions it is not necessary. It may be that in the course of time the Grand Jury system will be found superfluous, and will be altogether abolished. I should rather regret that myself, and I think that will probably be the opinion of most hon. Members who are familiar with it. However that may be, this Bill simply purposes to abolish the Grand Jury system at Quarter Sessions.
Clause 4 is another recommendation of the Bodkin Committee. It is a very technical matter, but it does lay down in a simple and codified form the procedure that is to be followed in the case of persons who are charged with offences, and desire either to make a statement or to give evidence, or to make a statement and to give sworn evidence. There will be no difficulty on the part either of the magistrates, the Justices at Quarter Sessions, or the Judges at the Assizes, or on the part of the prisoner in knowing in future the precise form which is to be followed on these occasions. I pass now from the Clauses which carry out the recommendations of the Bodkin Committee to three Clauses which, perhaps, merit particular notice. The first of them is
Clause 19, which deals with the power of search in certain cases for obscene books and other articles which it is very desirable to prevent the sale, exhibition, or distribution of. Nobody who is familiar with this traffic but knows the extraordinary difficulties there are in preventing it. Don. Members also know what an evil it is that a traffic of this sort should be carried on with impunity. At the same time, everybody desires to respect the rights of the British citizen, and the idea that a man's house shall be his castle. We have to reconcile the privileges of the private citizen with the duty of the State and the desire of everybody, I am sure, to grapple with this difficult question, the exhibition, distribution, and sale of obscene books Accordingly, Clause 19 provides that
(1) If a justice is satisfied by information on oath made before him by an inspector of police or any other officer of police of equal or superior rank that there is reasonable cause to suspect that indecent or obscene articles are kept within any place within the jurisdiction of the justice for the purpose of being sold, published, distributed, exhibited, lent on hire or otherwise dealt with, and whether in any case for purposes of gain or not, the justice may issue a search warrant….
I hope hon. Members will accept the principle of the Clause; any discussion as to details can be suitably dealt with in Committee. The second of the three Clauses which I think it necessary to dwell upon is Clause 20 which provides for the investigation of banking accounts. It may appear that this is a very far-reaching power to be given to anybody, but hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty which the Director of Public Prosecutions is in at the present time. They will be well aware of cases in the last year or two where the financial transactions of the person charged has been absolutely a vital part of fife case, and, in a case of the sort, unless information can be obtained as to the way in which large sums of money have been dealt with, it is impossible to secure conviction. This Clause provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions may obtain an order in the High Court giving him power to inspect the banking account of any person who has been or is about to be charged with any offence. The present position is that the Director of Public
Prosecutions finds himself in a vicious circle. He suspects an offence against somebody in respect of large sums of money. He has reason to suppose that they are contained in some banking account, and that the suspected person is drawing from that account and reducing the amount which ought to be available for repaying those who have been defrauded. The present practice is that the Public Prosecutor proceeds under the Bankers Book Evidence Act when he requires to see a banking account, and when he obtains an order under that Act the banks give the fullest possible information. But such an order can only be obtained after process has been issued and the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken upon himself the risk, probably upon insufficient evidence. of commencing criminal proceedings against the person suspected. That may operate very harshly upon the person charged, and this makes it exceedingly difficult to frame a proper charge. It is thought desirable, in order to escape from this cul de sac in which the Director of Public Prosecutions constantly finds himself, to give him power to obtain an Order for this purpose from a Judge in the High Court. I agree that this is a drastic power—

Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If hon. Members will reflect for a moment they will remember that in connection with the Income Tax information is given to a Government Department which is most zealously guarded by the Inland Revenue Department for the purposes of the Income Tax alone, and nobody suggests that the Inland Revenue Department abuses the confidence reposed in them. I think hon. Members will find in this case some parallel to the powers which it is now proposed to give to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The circumstances I admit are somewhat different, but he will obtain this information solely for the purpose of criminal proceedings as to which he has to satisfy a Judge of the High Courts before he gets power to inspect the banking account. The only difference is that he will have the power to enable him to initiate criminal proceedings against persons who at present are likely to go scot free or he would have to institute criminal proceedings
on insufficient information. I hope hon. Members will agree that this is a proper power to give to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it can only be obtained by him on the Order of a Judge of the High Court.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is quite different from what exists now. What the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes now is that the bankers should violate the undertaking which they have given to their customers to keep their accounts secret in order that the Director of Public Prosecutions may see if he find evidence on which to institute a prosecution.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend, by the skill of his interruption, if I may be allowed to say so—

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: And his much greater knowledge.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to the right hon. Baronet it will be more courteous and more convenient. My right hon. Friend with his accustomed skill puts his case as strongly as it can be put against this proposal in the Bill and he says this is an essentially different proposal from the law as it exists to-day. Of course it is, but the principle is not very different. When my right hon. Friend speaks about compelling bankers to violate their undertaking of secrecy with their customers he should realise that the banker is compelled to violate that custom of secrecy as the law stands to-day, if and when process has been issued. This is a matter so entirely for the House to decide, both of the liberty of the subject as guardians and as the body to determine what law shall be applied to criminals, that I do not put this Clause forward as one against which no arguments may be presented. Of course, it will be open to a great deal of argument, and I only ask hon. Members to read the Clause and to consider it as a proposal in the interests of the pursuit and conviction of criminals. If they think that the Clause goes too far, they will, of course, be at liberty- to express their opinions both on the Second Reading and in Committee. What I said at the beginning applies particularly here, and my right hon. Friend and the Government will welcome the disinterested
criticism which I am sure hon. Members will give to this Clause as to other parts of the Bill. I will say no more about this Clause except that we put it forward as one which will not in any way interfere either with the relations of the banks with their customers or with the general liberty of the subject, but will conduce to the apprehension and conviction of a class of criminal whose evil deeds it is very difficult detect.
Clause 24 of the Bill deals with a subject matter which hon. Members have had brought to their attention by one of two recent cases in connection with the coercion of a wife. There were two proposals which might have been adopted and which were considered by a Committee appointed in 1922 to consider this question of coercion. The Committee considered two alternative proposals. One was to abolish the presumption of coercion where a crime is committed by a wife in the presence of her husband, but leaving the defence of coercion open to the wife. There would be no legal presumption, but the wife might show by evidence that she was coerced. The other alternative was to abolish the, whole doctrine of coercion and to leave the wife in precisely the same position as any other person would be in the eyes of the law, unless she could prove that by actual physical force she was compelled to commit the act. The Committee recommended the second course of complete abolition, and no different doctrine of coercion as applying to the wife as compared with any other citizen.
This Bill does not adopt the recommendation of the Committee but proposes to adopt the first alternative, which is to abolish the legal presumption but to leave the wife free to prove to the satisfaction of the jury, if she can, that she was coerced, not merely by physical compulsion or bodily fear, but by that power which the husband, when all is said and done, has over a woman. I think hon. Members will feel—at least, I hope they will feel—that that proposal agrees with the general feeling which we all have about the position of woman. When all is said and done, although we recognise to the full her intellectual and spiritual, I was going to say equality, may I not say superiority over men, she is not yet, nor probably ever will be, built in such a way as to
be able to hold her own against the domination of a powerful personality who also happens to be her husband, and we think that justice will be maintained if we allow a woman placed in such circumstances as those to show that, though she is not compelled by bodily fear or physical compulsion, she was, in fact, dominated by the husband, and in those circumstances the jury may acquit her. I hope hon. Members will not regard me as putting forward this Bill as though it were the Ten Commandments coming down from the mountain. We believe it is the result of a great deal of hard work by these three different committees and by the persons who are responsible for the administration of criminal justice. We put it forward for the sympathetic consideration of the House, and we hope that, generally speaking, the Bill will be adopted as it stands to-day as a series of proposals likely to facilitate the administration of criminal justice, to reduce the expense of doing so, and to make the system work more easily for the acquittal of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Whatever may be the opinion held in relation to this Bill, I think we shall all agree as to its importance. The Committees which have sat and considered the subject to which the Solicitor-General referred are to be congratulated on their labours, and I say at once that there will be no question in any part of the House that there is in this Bill a great deal that we are all very anxious to see carried into law. It has been a matter of gratification to us that the Solicitor-General has just informed us that Clauses 19 and 20, which I think he put before the House somewhat apologetically, may be subject to review in Committee. I think he gave us to understand, particularly in regard to Clause 19, that the opinion of the House might very readily be taken. I hope when that opportunity arises it will be the free opinion of the House. I think we can assure him that so far as Clause 19 is concerned, giving to the police officer such considerable powers, there is likely to be
most vigorous opposition on this side of the House, and as regards Clause 20 some of us consider that as officialism run mad. Therefore, so far as Clauses 19 and 20 are concerned, there will be most acute controversy if the Government insist on mainlining these provisions in anything like their present form.
11.0 P.M.
I wish to refer particularly to three subjects: firstly to that which was put aside very lightly by the Solicitor-General, namely, that of Grand Juries. He said he hoped that that subject would not be controversial, but the mere fact that the Government have in this Bill wiped out grand juries at Quarter Sessions, but propose to retain them at Assizes, must make the matter controversial. If hon. Members will refer to the Memorandum at the head of the Bill, they will see it stated that the subject of grand juries has been considered by the Judges, and we are told that during the War the summoning of grand juries was suspended, both at Assizes and at Quarter Sessions. The Memorandum proceeds:
At the end of the War the opinion of the Judges of the High Court was taken as to the expediency of abolishing grand juries, but the opinion of the majority of them was against the course. The Bill, accordingly, does not deal with grand juries at Assizes.
Apparently, therefore, among His Majesty's Judges there is division, although we are not told in the Memorandum whether the majority in favour of their retention was substantial or not. There are, however, considerations that must be weighed during the passing of this Bill. Although we all recognise that the grand jury is a very interesting historical remnant, if one may use the term, yet we have to recognise, surely, that certain events have grown um which have made our system outgrow the grand jury system. The preliminary investigation of crime is now made by an authority much more satisfactory than the grand jury can ever be, and that is the investigating magistrate. The grand jury no longer fulfils its original purpose, namely, that of a public prosecutor. Further, as long as we retain the grand jury, it is possible for any evilly-disposed person to come before a grand jury and prefer a bill of indictment for felony against an absolutely innocent man, without any preliminary inquiry whatever, and I might refer to
an interesting article that appeared in the "Law Times" for the present week, referring to something that happened at the City of London Sessions only a few days ago. It says:—
On the 16th instant a bill was preferred before the grand jury at the opening of the Sessions at the Old Bailey without a preliminary hearing of the case before a Magistrate. In his charge to the grand jury, the Recorder, Sir Ernest Wild, explained that British subjects had the privilege of coming before the grand jury and presenting a bill against anyone. I do suggest,' said the Recorder, that, before you find that bill, you should carefully examine it, because there is no other sifting body but yourselves. If you think it is a case that should be allowed, you will find a true bill. The person preferring it has not thought it right to take the ordinary, and I think in most cases the fairer, step of bringing the matter first before a Magistrate.'
The article goes on to quote the opinion of Sir Fitzjames Stephen, who spoke of the great wrong that might be done to a man when, before the grand jury—which, after all, is a secret court—some charge might be made, a charge that he might be able to rebut, but the mere knowledge that the charge has been made might do irreparable harm to him in his estate and in his reputation. As long as the grand jury is maintained there is, at any rate, that danger; and there is, further, the consideration that the system of grand juries, as we have it in this country to-day, involves a very heavy expense upon national funds and upon local funds, as well as upon individuals—an expenditure which, I submit, is quite disproportionate to the theoretical advantage. In that relation, may I just refer to the Report, quoted by the Solicitor-General, of the Committee on Alterations of Criminal Procedure, in which the Committee say:
It is understood that between £10,000 and £12,000 per annum has been saved within the Metropolitan Police District alone from the absence of grand juries during the War, and there is no doubt that, if it be thought desirable to discontinue summoning grand juries, except in cases of great gravity, such as treason, treason-felony, murder, etc., the economies effected in all Courts of trial throughout, England and Wales will amount to a very large sum. The value of the grand jury is largely discounted at the present day by reason of the very careful preliminary investigation before Justices, and the minuteness with which proofs of guilt are there attended.
So the very Committee quoted by the right hon. Gentleman says 11.0 P.M. the grand jury might very well be dispensed with. We have had some experience without them. During the War somehow we dispensed with -them, and I should be glad if anyone who supports their retention will tell us of any injustice that arose. As far as I can tell, not a dog barked throughout the country when they went. As a matter of fact, when it was decided to remove the suspension of grand juries, there was a protest. I put a question to the Home Secretary asking what protests had been received, and I was informed:
Since the termination of the Grand Jury Suspension Act protests against the grand jury system have been received at the Home Office from 48 sessions, one protest has been received from a chamber of commerce and two from private persons.
A very strong opinion was expressed by the late Lord Chancellor a month or two ago.
I was for nearly 20 years Chairman of a Quarter Sessions of my county and for 10 years Recorder of a borough, and, throwing my mind back, I cannot remember any occasion on which the absence of the grand jury would have had any prejudicial effect upon the administration of justice.
That is very valuable evidence. In the same Debate Lord Haldane said:
Why it should be retained, with its expense and with the vast amount of time which it wastes, I do not know. I hope a little later this Bill will be followed by that which is in accordance with the opinion of, I think, the majority of present-day authorities, namely, the abolition of the grand jury system for Assizes also.
I should like to know why it was that the grand jury system was retained for the Assizes. Mr. Justice Hawkins, as he was then, said it was retained in order that it might give the county gentlemen an opportunity of seeing how justice ought to be administered. Of course, there is the power to present an original Bill. Original Bills may be presented by the Attorney-General or by a private individual. I asked the Attorney-General how often that power had been exercised, and informed me
For the greater part of the period mentioned the summoning of grand juries was suspended by the Grand Juries Suspension Act, 1917. Under the power vested in the Attorney-General by that Act, fiats were granted during the last three years in four cases for the presentation of an indictment,
in addition to which a fiat has been granted in one case under the Vexatious Indictments Act.
However important those four cases might have been, I hardly think it can be contended that the grand jury system should be sustained for the few cases that can be dealt with satisfactorily in another way.
The serious and, I think, important contention is that it is a safeguard to the prisoner. That argument might very well be used if it had not now been proposed to wipe out grand juries at the Quarter Sessions, but it is impossible to argue that you can do without the grand jury at the Quarter Sessions but you must retain them for the Assizes. If it is a safeguard for the prisoner, the prisoner is entitled to it whether he goes to Quarter Sessions or to Assizes. Two men may be tried in the same town, and one is sent to Quarter Sessions and one to the Assizes. They have been charged with almost similar offences and might be innocent or guilty. One man, because of the accident that he goes to quarter sessions, is to be deprived of the safeguard of the grand jury and the other is not. It is open for the Government to say, "We think the grand jury is a safeguard for the prisoner, whether at the, Quarter Sessions or the Assizes," but it is impossible for the Government to say,"We look upon the grand jury as being a safeguard for a prisoner and so we propose to wipe it out at the Quarter Sessions. During the Committee stage, we intend to go into that matter very closely. The second point to which I wish to draw attention is a subject on which I have taken the opportunity of questioning the Attorney-General, and that is the right of Crown counsel to reply in criminal cases. That right is spoken of in Halsbury's "Laws of England," where he says:
If the Counsel for a party who does not begin calls no evidence, he has the last word, except where the Sovereign is party to the record, in which case either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, by virtue of his office, can claim to reply.
This question goes back for centuries. Formerly any counsel who appeared for the Crown was entitled to the last word, but in late years it has been held only to apply to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. Don. Members will
appreciate the difficulty. Counsel who appears for a prisoner, if he calls no evidence, except the evidence of the prisoner himself, is given the last word to the jury. As soon as the prisoner has given his evidence, prosecuting counsel addresses the jury, and he is followed by counsel for the defence, and then the Judge sums up. That applies in Ian cases, except where the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General appear. If it is a hanging case, a case where a man is being tried for murder, one can readily see the injustice. The matter has been commented upon again and again. I will quote what was said in 1886 by a distinguished counsel who was an honoured Member of this House, who represented the town to which I belong, Sir Edward Clarke. When he was counsel in the Bartlett case, in 1886, he said, when addressing the jury:
GENTLEMEN: I fear I shall have to detain you some time in discussing this case, for one reason which only applies in cases where the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General appears for the prosecution. There is a strange anomaly in the procedure 'n such cases.
He then outlined the procedure in ordinary cases, and in cases where the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General appears for the prosecution and has the right to address the last word to the jury. He spoke of this as an anomalous privilege. He said:
Gentlemen, it is an anomalous privilege, and I do not hesitate to say, as I have said in this Court before, that I hope an Attorney-General may be found some day, unless the law is altered, as it should be, to abandon the exercise of a right which does not seem to me to be defensible.
That objection has been taken up by different counsel on various occasions. Last year there was a distressing trial—the Bywaters case, in which the Solicitor-General used his right of reply. When the Solicitor-General appears as prosecuting counsel he has the right of reply which can be exercised by nobody except the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General. Objection was taken by the defending counsel, and in the Court of Criminal Appeal that was ramie one of the grounds of appeal. Of course the Lord Chief Justice brushed it aside. He said that it was still the law of the land. But all my sympathies are with the man on his trial, and the man on trial for his life ought not to have
the scales tipped against him by the mere accident that the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General appears to prosecute. It may be that it is not very much of an advantage. If not, it is an easy concession to make. If it is an advantage, the advantage ought not to be against the prisoner. Therefore, seeing that we are now dealing with the question of the administration of criminal justice, the anomaly, described as an anomaly so many years ago by Sir Edward Clarke, is one which I hope can be dealt with by some part of the Bill.
There is a third point—the right of the poor person to have legal defence provided before the magistrates. Under the law as it stands a poor person can be defended before the Assizes. A poor person who has been committed can ask for assistance on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that there shall be some defence revealed before the magistrates. But very often the case is fought out before the magistrates. I remember cases often being fought out before, the magistrates for three or four days and no help could be given to a poor person.
If the House will excuse personal reminiscences I remember nearly 20 years ago being concerned in the defence of a girl charged with the murder of her child. Before she went to the assizes the case was fought out for three days before the magistrates and the case was actually decided there. All the witnesses were brought forward by both sides, and if it had not been for the assistance of friends the girl would have been helpless and undefended there. If assistance is given later, it ought to be given earlier, especially now as the Bill extends the jurisdiction of the magistrates so widely. I think there has always been a case for assisting a poor person before the magistrates, but the case is strengthened now when we are giving heavier penalties and when we are bringing in a number of indictable of-fences under the jurisdiction of the magistrates and are doing what was never done before, and that is putting in indictable cases the question, "Are you guilty or not guilty?" That is a very difficult question to put, and very often a difficult question to answer. My sympathies are always with the man on trial, particularly with the poor person
on trial. Under our law poor persons are often heavily hit just because, they are poor.
Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear,
Robes and furred gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks,
Clothe it in rags a pigmy's straw doth pierce it.
Now we have an opportunity of making some provision for these poor people so that there may be something more of a standard of equality in the trial of poor persons, who if they happen to be in Court for the first time are in many cases at a hopeless disadvantage because they have no means to pay for legal representation and they are utterly bewildered by their experience. If you are going to widen the jurisdiction of the magistrates, you must take the, responsibility of facing this question. I hope it may be possible so to deal with this Measure that we can make it a great charter of reform. I think that is possible. If there can be some assurance that the points I have raised, at any rate, can be discussed during the Committee stage, I shall not press the Motion that I have put before the House, but I and my hon. Friends are very anxious, now the opportunity is given, that these other subjects that are not covered by the Bill might be brought within its ambit before it passes its Third Reading and goes to another place.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to refer briefly to one or two matters, and, first, to Clauses 19 and 20, and the extraordinary powers which are sought to be conferred in future. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General, in defending these provisions, in a halfhearted way, sought to draw an analogy between the present powers of the Income Tax authorities and the powers which he proposed to confer in the future. If I may say so, a more fallacious argument was never put before the House, because there is all the difference in the world. The present proposal of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is that, without the consent or will of anyone, an authority anxious to know whether there is a ground for prosecution or no may ransack the banker's book. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General put it on the ground that the right enjoyed by the
Income Tax authorities had never been abused, but there the difference is this. In that case it is a matter of the parties concerned consenting to give access to the Income Tax authorities, but in this case it is the reverse. It is an attempt to find out whether there is a case for prosecution or not by delving into the secret Commercial matters of the Community. That is a point on which, I think, there should be strong opposition put up at all stages of this Measure.
The second point to which I desire to refer is the question of grand juries. I believe I am right in saying that the origin and meaning of grand juries is this, that a person should have the opportunity of having it ascertained by a competent authority whether there was a prima' facie case or not before he was subjected to a public inquiry, with all that that might mean to his credit, even in the event of his securing an ultimate acquittal.
As a matter of fact, that, as I say, was the original meaning of such a provision. The very reverse has come to pass. It has now become this, that by a secret tribunal a man may well be indicted, and, for the first time, publicity be given to his case before there has been any public inquiry into the case at all, and before he knows of the accusation. We know, full well, that in the present day the Press system is so perfect and complete that any case worthy of it is adequately reported and made public, even in the preliminary stages, so that the whole meaning of trial by grand jury has ceased to exist. But, assuming for one moment that the arguments we are putting up were wrong, one thing could not be justified, and that is to say, in one breath, that the grand jury should be retained so far as Assizes are concerned, and be abolished so far as Quarter Sessions are concerned. We have to remember that although a case tried before the Quarter Sessions may be, in the public view, of small importance and in regard to the penalties involved may be of small importance, yet to the man who is standing his trial for the first time it means as much as any case taken to the Assizes. It means everything to him. With regard to poor prisoners there should be a provision that the prisoner at the earliest stage before
the magistrate, should know that if he desires to take advantage of the privileges which have been extended to him, he should give an indication at that stage of the nature of his defence or he will be deprived of that benefit at the later stage.
Clause 2 proposes—with, I admit, proper safeguards—to give extended jurisdiction to magistrates and it is material to consider whether benches of magistrates throughout the country are so constituted and their members so selected, that they are to be entrusted with an extended jurisdiction which, we may presume, is only the preliminary to other additional powers which may hereafter be conferred upon them. In all I say I should like to draw a sharp distinction between borough magistrates and county magistrates. There is no single county magistrate who is not absolutely convinced of the superiority of the county benches over the borough benches. I speak as one who has appeared before a great number of benches. [Laughter.] I am glad to say that so far—and I put in "so far" as a qualification or reservation which I know will appeal to hon. Members on the other side—it has only been in a professional capacity. With that experience, I have no hesitation in saying, that in every case and without exception, borough magistrates' benches are vastly superior to any county bench before which I have appeared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Before I sit down I am going to tell some tales, and hon. Members will judge for themselves. It may be denied by some, but is, I think, generally accepted that in the past to a great extent and at present to some extent, there is a distinct political flavour about the selection of members of the bench. I draw a distinction between past and present because there has been some mild add very misleading re-arrangement of the method by which magistrates are selected. Recently there has been a policy in regard to county benches of putting one man on the bench who is known to have leanings in the direction of Labour, or perhaps one woman. I think, if may say so with respect, the Labour Party are wrong in allowing one of their number to serve upon a bench of magistrates, which is generally, so far as the counties are concerned—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see what relation this has to the Bill.

Mr. GRAY: With great deference, I are trying, perhaps very imperfectly, to argue that inasmuch as under Clause 2 we are proposing to confer greater powers and authority upon benches of magistrates, it becomes very material to consider the means by which you constitute, create, and maintain the benches of magistrates upon whom, you propose to confer those greater powers. Why I say this with regard to Labour, and with regard to women, is this, that they ought to insist that, if they are to be represented, they should be adequately represented, they should be represented in the same proportion, I suggest, as they have secured representation in this House, and the same applies to the Party to which I belong. As it is, with one man put on the bench, it simply means that he is held to some degree responsible, without being able in any way to influence the overwhelming majority with which he is invariably faced. It may be said that that would be material if the benches were frequently called upon to try political issues, but my point is this, that whether you belong to this side or that is largely due to a state of mind, and the state of mind which determines that is the state of mind which influences the magistrates in coming to a decision upon certain points. Upon this very issue of appointments, I put a question to the Attorney-General, who, I see, is rather amused. I did not receive a sympathetic answer. I did not expect to. There is a great gulf between Mr. Attorney-General's and my state of mind, but I know very well the way in which he would meet my opposition. He would have me seized early in the morning—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think this is really relevant. This is an administrative question—the selection and appointment of magistrates, and we' cannot now go into that. The hon. Member, as far as this Bill is concerned, must take the bench as it is.

Mr. GRAY: I do not wish to pursue a matter which in any way contravenes the rules of this House, but I was endeavouring to urge that when you confer greater powers upon any authority, it becomes very material to consider the nature of that body.

Mr. SPEAKER: The whole day might be taken up in discussing the method of
appointing magistrates, but that would be quite irrelevant to the Bill. For the present purpose, the hon Member must take the bench as it is.

Mr. GRAY: Without desiring to argue that point, I submit that if one could make complaint, for instance, about the Quarter Sessions, it would be material to argue that in considering whether you were going to dispense with a grand jury or not, because the whole point must depend on the authority and respect you have for the next tribunal—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member might go on to criticise the stipendiary magistrates, and then the Judges. However, I have given my ruling on that matter, and the hon. Member must please observe it.

Mr. CASSELS: In rising to take part in this discussion, I venture to claim the indulgence which this Douse always extends to a new Member. I have a keen desire to leave the ranks of those who have not spoken in this House, and to join the ranks of those who have. I give general support to this Bill, because I recognise it is a measure which will facilitate the administration of criminal law, and also save expense. There are one or two suggestions that I would like to make to nay right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which, perhaps, might be considered in Committee. With regard to grand juries,' eminent judges will always differ—in fact, in their retirement they generally spend their leisure hours in writing letters to the "Times," either attacking or defending the system of grand juries. Real experience as to grand juries was obtained by what happened in War-time. No complaint was ever raised because they were abolished. As far as I understand the argument in favour of grand juries, apart from the fact that they happen to be a bulwark of the Constitution, it is that they enable eminent and respectable county gentlemen to meet together on certain occasions, and discuss the affairs of their county. Incidentally, they have an opportunity of seeing how justice should be administered. Incidentally, too, they return all true bills, and very, very occasionally throw Bills out.
I want to make an appeal for London, and to ask, if grand juries are to be retained, that, at any rate, they may be
abolished as far as the Central Criminal Court is concerned. The Central Criminal Court administers criminal law in a district which is no county at all. It has a jurisdiction extending from Uxbridge to Leyton, from Barnet to nearly as far as Croydon. The whole of the county of Middlesex, part of Surrey, part of Kent and part of Essex come within that jurisdiction, and while it may be said for any other part of the country that the eminent county gentlemen meet, with some interest in common, no one can suggest that a grand jury assembling at the Old Bailey has anything at all in common, except the desire to get away. The reason for grand juries is supposed to be that they protect the prisoner. I never knew a Bill to be thrown out in any case in which a petty jury would not have stopped the case before it had got halfway through. Therefore, I appeal for the abolition of the grand jury as far as the Old Bailey is concerned. I am satisfied, from such inquiries as I have made, that the saving of expense in London would be between £10,000 and £12,000 a year, if the grand juries were abolished. It means the assembling of witnesses from all parts of the country, merely for the purpose of being called in front of the grand jury if the foreman of the grand jury should think he desires to see them. If it happen that a man living in London should have obtained by fraud something from a gentleman who lives in Glasgow—a very rare event, of course—the grand jury sits to consider whether a true bill shall be returned or not; the gentleman from Glasgow has to be brought to London; he goes before the grand jury; he goes back again to Glasgow; he is brought here again for trial, and then he returns once more, a sadder but a wiser man. His fare has to be paid twice—and that is once too many—because of the grand jury. Therefore, I ask that the grand jury in the case of the Old Bailey be put in the background.
This Bill dispenses with the attendance of certain formal witnesses, and, therefore, is an exceedingly good Measure, because at the trial many formal witnesses are called to produce documents, and their attendance has to be paid for. If they attend at the police court, and their
names appear on the depositions, no one would object if their depositions were read to the jury. There is nothing in this Bill which amends the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, except in one small particular. The subject I want to mention is the new powers given to the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial. Many Judges who have sat in that Court have expressed their regret that the Criminal Appeal Act does not give the Court power, in appropriate cases, to order a new trial.
This Bill extends the jurisdiction of Police Courts. There certainly is a tendency to allow magistrates to have very much larger jurisdiction in cases and greater power over their fellow citizens. I wish to make a suggestion to the right hon. and learned AttorneyGeneral—that in Committee he will provide facilities for appeals to Quarter Sessions from the decisions of the magistrates. At present if a person be in the unhappy position of having been convicted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and he desire to appeal, he has to find sureties to prosecute that appeal. That is not a very simple thing, for it means that he has to find two people willing to pledge themselves to pay the costs of the appeal to the extent of their sureties should it be unsuccessful. So the magistrates in fixing the sureties, and being, perhaps, naturally a little indignant that there should be an appeal from their decision, fix it at such a figure that it is prohibitive as far as many people are concerned, and tells against the possibility of appeal. In some cases it is fixed as high as £200, and that surely should not be when the jurisdiction of the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction is increased so much. There are other matters that will give rise to a good deal of discussion. Clause 10 is one which hon. Members, recognising the subject of Income Tax, will feel that it is necessary should be very fairly criticised. I recognise no secrecy, so far as the relationship of banker and customer is concerned, if it be sought to protect by that secrecy property which has been fraudulently obtained. You can follow stolen property from the thief to the receiver without any obstruction, with no one objecting. Yet when it is suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions, with every safeguard that can be provided by a Judge of the High
Court, desires to go into a bank, and make inquiries into an account that he considers contains money which has been obtained by the commission of an offence, it is said that you are breaking the time-honoured secrecy between the banker and his client, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions should not be allowed to do so. I would support that part of the Clause.
As regards the second part, I would suggest that that might be considered, because it is not fair, in my opinion, to handicap the accused person at the start, by providing that so far as his banking account is concerned, he cannot touch it without the permission of a Judge of the High Court. Dow can a person who is on remand in Brixton Prison make an application to the High Court to enable him to operate his banking account, if he be lucky enough to have one? I recognise that at the end of the case, if he has been adequately defended, he probably will not have a banking account… While, however, the case is on, it is only right that he should have access to his banking account, if only for the purpose of drawing upon it for the very necessary matter of his own defence. In addition to that—although I would not put it quite so high—there is the question of maintenance of his wife and dependants. That is another matter for which he ought to be allowed to write cheques. I shall support the first part of the Clause, but if I should have the good fortune to be upon the Committee which considers this Bill, I shall certainly urge the amendment of the second part of the Clause.
There is the last Clause dealing with the question of the coercion of the wife. I can only regret that the Bill there does not follow the recommendations of the Committee. They suggested that the defence of coercion of the wife by the husband should be abolished. The presumption is one matter, and defence is another. Now that it has been legally discovered that wives no longer obey their husbands, but on the contrary that husbands obey their wives, the defence of the coercion of the wife ought to be abolished, lest juries should be under the impression that whenever a woman commits an offence, it has been done at the command of the husband. I think that
it is a proper matter to be taken into account in mitigation of punishment, though in these days of equal rights women will claim to be punished just as much as men. I shall give a general support to this Bill, and I make these suggestions for the consideration of the Attorney-General when the Committee stage of this Bill is reached.

Mr. W. A. JOWITT: I find myself fortunately circumstanced in having to follow in this Debate the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down and who for the first time has addressed the Douse. I congratulate him upon his interesting speech, giving a closely reasoned survey of the Bill which did not surprise those who have known him for many years in the Law Courts. My task is rendered more difficult, because I find myself in complete agreement with every word he said. If the intention is to press the Amendment to a Division, I shall support the Second Reading. On the whole, this is an admirable Bill, although it contains certain blemishes, but they are really Committee points, and as the Attorney-General is present, I am certain that he will pay attention to the suggestions which have been made, and I should like to make two or three comments for his consideration. First of all, with regard to Clause 19. In its present form it seems wholly bad. From all quarters of the House at the present time we look for support for the rights and liberties of the individual as against the possible tyranny of the executive. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has no inclination to become a tyrant, but at the same time it is very undesirable that the executive should be given these extremely wide powers against well disposed citizens.
The position is that at present this matter is governed by the Act of 1857 which deals with obscene books and literature. I think I am right in saying that, under that Act, in order to secure a general search warrant it is essential to show that the person against whom the warrant was sought was contemplating the exhibition, or publication, or the sale, or hire for the purposes of gain. Nobody in any section of this House desires to give any protection to people who sell disgusting articles to make a living out of it; but I doubt whether
it is wise to extend the provisions of the Act of 1857 and make the right of applying for a general search warrant to extend to cases where nobody is believed to have any indecent articles which is defined as including books, writings, pictures and models, and all other articles whatsoever whether similar to the things before mentioned or not. The mere having on your premises certain things, although you do not intend to use them for the purpose of gain, constitutes grounds for the granting of a general search warrant. When the police inspector goes to search he is entitled to examinee the premises and any person found therein. Does that mean searching their clothing or asking them questions, and then he is entitled to receive any such articles. That is not limited to articles used for sale, publication, exhibition, or otherwise. You have now introduced the words "whether for the purpose of gain or not." Unless those words are considered important you have not made any substantial change in law under the Act of 1857.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): indicated dissent.

Mr. JOWITT: The Attorney-General shakes his head, and if he takes that view then I am probably wrong and he is right. I have been looking recently at the Act of 1857, and that is the impression which I formed. With regard to Clause 20, I entirely agree with the last speaker. I should not so much object to the Director of Public Prosecutions in a proper case obtaining a copy of a banking account, but it does seem to me to be opposed to the principles of English justice that you should get something in the nature of an execution before you have got judgment. The Director thinks this is necessary for the purpose of rendering more effective Sub-section (2) of Clause 20 which relates to a fine. Not only this, but to ensure that the fine shall be paid the Director is entitled not only to get a copy of the banking account, but to obtain a stop order on the account, which in the case of a tradesman might mean ruination. If a private individual sought such an injunction he could only obtain it by giving an undertaking to be responsible for damages. If any such provision as this is going to be put in
it is only fair, if the director finds that he has made a mistake and not stop, order ought to have been made that the person who has been injured ought to be compensated out of public funds. I object to Clause 20 as it stands, and I hope the Attorney-General will consider whether he is justified in pressing it through.
I would like to refer to one or two other small matters. With regard to the change of venue, I think it should be stated clearly that no change should be made unless the accused person consents. It seems to me that it is the historic right of a man to be tried by his Peers in his own county, and unless he is willing to give up that right he ought to be able to adhere to it. At the present time, so far as the Bill is concerned, it does not seem to me clear one way or the other.
Then, as regards the Poor Persons Defence Act, a subject with which I do not pretend to be very familiar, it seems to me a matter of importance here. You are enlarging very considerably the jurisdiction of the magistrates. So far as you are enlarging the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, I, for one, welcome it entirely. My only experience of Quarter Sessions was a good many years ago at Plymouth, where they were presided over by an hon. and learned Member opposite, and the House would understand me when I say that I have a great belief in Quarter Sessions and welcome their extension. I have a little misgiving about the extension of the powers of the magistrates who in certain county districts have not the necessary training which undoubtedly is of use in weighing evidence and arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. I have some doubt about the wisdom of that, but on the whole I am prepared to assent to it, and I think the Attorney-General might consider whether there is not an opportunity here of doing what I have often thought would be a very good thing from the point of view of the Bar and of the prisoner. The young barrister, so anxious to have an opportunity to do a case and get on his legs, would be only too thankful to go and attend these courts, and, if it were in accordance with the etiquette of the profession, to give his advice and assistance gratuitously to
defend people charged with crime. It is true, as the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has said, that it is no easy matter for a trained man to know whether the right plea is "Guilty" or "Not guilty." I should welcome the possibility of the extension of the principle of the aid which is granted under the Poor Persons Act not only to Assizes and Quarter Sessions, to which it is now limited, but to the appearance before the magistrate.
I should like the Attorney-General to consider the point referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray) who said it is desirable that persons should be told clearly that, unless before the magistrate they disclose some defence, they forfeit the privilege they otherwise would have of getting assistance under the Poor Persons Defence Act. I apologise for taking up time with a series of small matters on a Bill which is an excellent Measure. It is because the Solicitor-General invited criticisms, and because I have responded in no party spirit that I venture to hope the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General would see how far they can go to meet these small points which have been urged on and put before me in particular by a well-known society that takes an interest in these matters—the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Mr. SINGLETON: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I find myself in general agreement with this Bill, but there are just one or two matters that I should like to bring to the notice of the Attorney-General in order that he may deal with them at the proper time. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), this Bill increases very materially the powers of magistrates. One only has to look at Clause 2 and refer in turn to the Second Schedule of the Bill to see the various types of offence with which magistrates will be empowered to deal if this Bill becomes an Act. What I desire to do is to impress on the Attorney-General the desirability of adopting the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels) with regard to appeals from Petty Sessions. Appeals are only possible under certain conditions. They may be allowed by a particular Act which creates the offence, or under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 or the Criminal Justice Act, 1914. Whether
they are allowed generally or by a particular Act, they are always subject to this requirement, that the appeal can only be in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. One requirement of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, is that the appellant shall enter into recognisances and provide sureties, and these sureties have to be satisfactory to the police so that in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful, the police or the prosecuting party can recover their costs of the appeal. That, in many cases, is a blot on the administration of justice. In many cases appeals at Quarter Sessions by people who can find the necessary recognisances and sureties are successful. That fact shows that if there could be appeals in cases where people are not able to provide the necessary sureties or deposit the money required for an appeal, some would be successful. So long as there is that requirement in criminal cases, it seems to me that we cannot say honestly that our law is the same for the rich as for the poor.
I have always felt that in such cases the rights ought to be the same, and that no man ought to be debarred from appealing to Quarter Sessions because he cannot provide the necessary money, or provide the necessary sureties. I suggest to the Attorney-General that, if we are now increasing the powers of magistrates we ought to increase to some extent the right of appeal of the man who has been convicted. In any case, I suggest that where a man tried before a Court of summary jurisdiction has been convicted he should have his right of appeal, subject to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, but in such a case the magistrates, because of the importance of the case or because of the lack of resources of the man convicted, might have the power to dispense with the requirement of the Summary Jurisdiction Act as to finding sureties or entering into recognisances. On the other hand, if such an application is made by a person who has been convicted, and the magistrate or magistrates who convicted him refuse to grant his request, he should have the right of applying to the Recorder or to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, out of Session, for dispensation of the requirement as to entering into recognisances under the
Act of 1879. If it was open to the Recorder or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions to make such order as seemed to him right under the circumstances, we should be doing something towards giving the same right of appeal to Quarter Sessions to the man who has no money as we give now to the man who is provided with funds.
I emphasise this point for one reason. We have provided various measures of help to poor people who have been convicted by other tribunals. If a man is convicted before a jury at Quarter Sessions or at Assizes he has a right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on a question of law, or by leave of the Judge or the Court on a question of fact, and no recognisance is required, and no surety has to be found. He can appeal without any cost to himself; indeed, he can often get legal aid. It is provided by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, that no costs are payable by him. If in that manner we protect the rights of a person convicted by a Court with more experience than a Court of first instance, and if he is provided with legal aid at the Quarter Sessions, the Assizes or in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and if, again, in civil matters we allow a poor person to proceed in, forma pauperis or to appeal in forma pauperis, we ought to have some such provision as I have suggested in regard to appeal from the Court of first instance to Quarter Sessions. We must remember that the Court of first instance is possibly a Court with the least judicial experience of any Court in the country, civil or otherwise.
12 M.
It is most essential to my mind to do away with the feeling which many people have that they cannot appeal to the Quarter Sessions purely because of lack of means. I wonder if it has occurred to anyone what may happen under Clause 19. A constable or inspector of police suspects some house of containing a model which he thinks to be indecent. He gets a search warrant, takes it before the Court of First Instance and secures, under Subsection (3), an Order for it to be destroyed. Under Sub-section (4),
any person aggrieved by an Order made under this Section may appeal against the Order to the Court of Quarter Sessions in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
Though this man's house has been searched and something may have been found which he regards as an object of art, and an Order has been made for destruction of a valuable article, he cannot appeal against the Order except in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, entering into his recognisances and finding sureties, and possibly he is unable to do it.
Another matter I desire to mention, in order to express approval of it, was that right which is given by Clause 13 with regard to the right of appeal against sentence of a person who has pleaded guilty. That, to my mind, is another matter which for a long time has cried for a remedy. I am glad to know that now there is a strong probability that that shortly will become law. I suppose all of us who have been concerned with Courts of one kind and another, in one way or another, have found that from time to time a man has been taken to a Police Court and been charged with an offence: he did not desire it to get into the papers. I remember one case in which a professional man was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor car. He asked a police sergeant how he could best get through and was told if he said "Guilty" he would be fined 10s. and no one would know anything about it. He did, and instead of being fined 10s. he was sentenced to a month's imprisonments, which was of course utter ruin to him had it been allowed to stand, and all the time he was able to obtain a number of witnesses who could and ultimately did prove his sobriety. It was fortunate for him that the conviction was under the Licensing Act, 1872, and that being incorporated with the Licensing Act, 1910, and the wording being somewhat different, he had in fact a right of appeal. The Section of the Licensing Act that gave a right of appeal was:
If any person feels aggrieved by an Order or conviction made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act he may appeal there from to Quarter Sessions.
A little different from the words of any other Act on the subjects. In many cases here, a man has pleaded guilty before a court of first instance, he has been left without remedy, even though he hags received an altogether harsh sentence. He has had since 1907 a right of appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act against
sentence if convicted on indictment and I am glad to know that any man who has pleaded guilty, after this Measure becomes law, will have a right of appeal against the sentence passed by magistrates.

Captain BERKELEY: I cannot claim the kind of experience hon. Members who have just been addressing the Douse have had, but I Mid, before the War, have four years' practice, mostly before magistrates ands mostly of a criminal nature, in the Colonies, and there are one or two observations on Clauses which have not been touched upon that I should like to make. The first deals with Clause 4. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he is really satisfied that the words which the examining justices are to put to the prisoner after the depositions have been taken are really in the interest of the prisoner or whether there is not a danger that they might entrap him into making some kind of admission which he would be far wiser not to make at -chat stage. As I understand it, in the days when I used to practice, the whole purpose of a trial in a court of law was that the Crown should make out a prima facie case without any assistance which could inadvertently be given them by the defence, and the magistrate should thereupon commit the man to take his trial. The case the last speaker mentioned in which a man pleaded guilty was not an indictable case. It was a summary case. It is quite possible that a poor person, not represented by counsel, appearing before a magistrate on an indictable charge might be put in the same position. He might wonder if the best thing wads not to plead guilty and it might be very detrimental to his interests later. Or he might make no specific plea. He might make a sort of rambling statement. I am sorry to see that this provokes the mirth of hon. Members opposite. It is a serious topic. I may not be expressing it as clearly as the hon. Member would like. I am not expressing it as clearly as I should like, but I am doing my best. It might very well happen that an illiterate man might wake a rambling, incoherent reply to this question and it might prejudice the conduct of his defence in the superior court when he came to take his trial. I suggest that the really healthy rule to observe is that the prisoner should invariably reserve his defence and that he ought to be cautioned by the magistrate to that
effect. I ask the Attorney-General whether he can see his way to consider varying the form of words which are set out to be used by the examining magistrate. I would suggest that the words "and do you plead guilty or not guilty" might very well be omitted.
With regard to Clause 19, I share profoundly the doubts expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt) and from the other side. It seems to me that -the empowering words of the Clause are altogether too wide. I would ask the Attorney-General to bear in mind that the interpretation Clause is going to lie with a body of men who, however desirous they may be, as we all know they are, of doing their duty, are liable to make mistakes. We all know that a prominent member of one public body in this country recently denounced mixed bathing as indecent. It is easy to imagine a justice of the peace with very narrow, restricted views as to what constitutes indecency granting a search warrant in circumstances in which no search warrant should be granted, and it is easy to imagine circumstances arising in which objects of art might be destroyed by such action. I hope that the Attorney-General will give careful consideration to this point.
Clause 26 seems to me to introduce a curious principle. It provides that the forgery of a passport or the making of a statement which, to the knowledge of the person making it, is false, for the purpose of procuring a passport for himself or another person, shall be a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding £100 or both. That punishment is not too severe for the forgery of a passport, but surely the offence of making a false statement in connection with the obtaining of a passport does not stand in the same category as forgery. It is not even a statement made on oath, and punishment for forgery is even more severe than punishment for perjury. Here you have an identical punishment proposed for the forgery of a passport, which is a very serious breach of what has for centuries been the law of the land, and the making of a false declaration. I hope that on that point, as on the others, the Attorney-General will be able to give consideration, and possibly to suggest modifications.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not propose at this hour of the evening to take up very much time. I think that the Government may be congratulated on the Debate to which we have just listened. The criticism which has been offered in respect of the Bill has been really helpful. As the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt) pointed out, this is not a party question, but a question relating to matters of the highest importance in which every one would desire to co-operate. I would like to add a word of special congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels). We who have known him at the Bar always knew that, he could make a good speech when he wished, but he has had the self-restraint to wait until a subject upon which he is an acknowledged master came up for discussion, and he has reaped the reward in the reception which his speech has received on all hands this evening.
I do not propose to go in detail through all the matters to which reference has been made this evening. I do not think that it can often have happened that the speaker who moved the rejection of a Bill wound up his speech, as did the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill, by the statement that with some slight amendment the Bill might be made into a great charter of reform. All the criticism has been on comparatively small points. There was a discussion as to grand juries with regard to which the House will remember that we are not proposing to keep matters as they were, but that we are proposing to abolish grand juries at Quarter Sessions, but not at Assizes. The question of the retention of grand juries, as has been pointed out, is a matter on which there is a great conflict of expert opinion. We hope, by the method we have adopted, to be able to preserve the advantages which some people, at any rate, see in the grand jury system, while lessening very greatly the expense and burden which they undoubtedly impose on some sections of the community.
A word as to Clause 19. The hon. Member for the Hartlepools said that the only alteration in the law was that under the new proposals it was no longer necessary to prove that the indecent articles were kept for sale. The position is that under the existing law you not only have
to prove that the objects are intended for sale, but you have to state in your information on oath, that one of them has been actually sold, or offered for sale, under Section 1 of the Act of 1857. That has actually caused great inconvenience. The particular case I have in mind is one where a foreigner came over with a great stock of indecent, articles, which he kept at an hotel in London, and intended to purvey undoubtedly all over the country, with great harm to the public morality; and where the magistrate was unable to grant a search warrant because nobody could swear that he had actually sold or offered for sale any of those articles.
There is another difficulty that arises in practice, that unfortunately there are—although it is not a very agreeable subject to discuss—persons who are so depraved in taste that they desire to distribute these articles, not for purposes of gain, but for purposes of lust, and nothing else; and that at present renders it impossible to take measures against them. We are not wedded to the particular language of the Clause, and I can assure the hon. Member that we are as anxious as he is not unduly to increase the power of the Executive, as he put it, but those are the sort of people with whom we want to deal. I shall be very happy to consider any suggestions the hon. Member made to keep this power in without running risks such as he pointed out. There have been various helpful suggestions with regard to other matters which might be dealt with in the Bill. I do not propose to deal with them now, not from any discourtesy to the hon. Members who referred to them, nor from any desire to shirk discussion, but because I can more profitably deal with them in detail when they are brought up on the Committee stage. I think the House will feel that this Bill might fairly be given a Second Reading and the matters left for discussion in Committee. I thank the Douse, and the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate, for the suggestions they have put forward, and I shall be very glad indeed to welcome suggestions from anybody in the Douse, or, indeed, any body of expert opinion outside the House. I hope, with the assistance of hon. Members on all sides of the Douse, we may make of this Bill a real advance and a real improvement in regard to the detection of crime.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Barnsley Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th April and published, be approved subject to the modifications and additions proposed by the Select Committee
appointed to consider the Draft Order."—[Viscount Wolmer.]

Orders of the Day — SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes after Twelve o'clock.